Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
October 25th, 2022Any word on the next beta release?
Waiting for it to begin my next playthrough
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Patch Notes e1.8.0
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Knight at Arms
I think there is a good chance that balancing like this will receive more attention as features / content are wrapped up.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Thank you.
You are correct, they "think" they are right, whether they are or not, not very open minded when you refuse to imagine there could be a better way. A lot could be solved with sliders/option, but some devs "Think" its not a good idea even though many people love it. I wish I was a dev then I could "think" I am right all the time and my opinion is what really matters. So a dev disagrees with/ believes to be wrong, but 99% of the community thinks is a good idea, is the dev still in the right????? (nothing specific, using as an example) Being open minded and thinking you could be wrong isn't a sign of weakness. I do it all the time on my channel, I listen and keep an open mind instead of just thinking I am always right. Many people, including dev have changed my mind on issues, because I keep an open mind instead of being hard headed and just assuming all that matters in my own opinion.I think you will be hard pressed to find developers that do things they disagree with / believe to be wrong
It is a great accomplishment to annoy guys like Flesson, one of the most supportive and helpful guys here, well done TW.
Just thought the same. When the guy who knows the game inside and out and has been one of the most active contributors tells you you ****ed up, you know you ****ed up
Brano
Sergeant at Arms
Yeah, why not. Its like Caladog runs out of money, so he locks him self up in his smithy in Marunath and hammers/sells javelins like crazy 24/7. If player can do it, so can Caladog
The AI needs to be spending Campaign time (time moving on map where other parties can also move/do things) to earn all it's money and resources. That is, they need to waste time whenever they need more money or to replace troops. The AI should not have any instant and remote actions like hiring mercs and receiving defecting clans, the faction leader should be moving on the map (spending campaign time) to do these things. They need to move on the map and take part in the world. I think every clan should have 1 party that stays in it's area doing quests, fighting bandits and leveling up troops for the garrisons and such. This would go long way to making it seem like the AI is part of the world and not just bots spawning in constantly.
Warband lords have much longer downtime from being defeated (or released/escaped) and fielding offensive parties. It's true on high campaign difficulty they get good troops on respawn, but it's still far more time before the enemy is able to siege again, providing a useful window for the player to take a target and secure it. Bannerlord AI factions have a constant supply of armies so there is no window, it makes all the battles feel unrewarding and strategy is basically only "siege fief, siege fief, ignore enemy, siege fief" and you win because the AI will always lose material and you can mostly preserve your troops with good live tactics (not the skill tactics...). The amount of units the AI gets makes no sense as their fief count keeps dropping but they still have just as many armies just as fast. It blatantly ruins any illusion of a supply or economy for the AI. It's so much that they even think they're winning as they lose, because the amount of power they recover is so much and so fast that they ALWAYS think they have an advantage as they are loosing fiefs. It's so fast the game doesn't even have a chance to recognize that they lost massive power before they get it back and then calculate they're winning because they now have more power compared to fiefs again (because they lost fiefs to to you). And lets not forget Bannerlord was promoted as "The AI lords behave and compete like the player" I can't remember the exact wording, but it set a expectation that has not been met by the behavior and attrition of the AI in the game yet.
Oh and another Warband thing: In warband lord left the realm and factions were destroyed in a much better and satisfying way then in bannerlord. For hundreds of days now the Khuzait have no fiefs but they still have all their clans (plus merc lol). They need to promptly jump ship and Monchung needs to go away. Same with every other faction until it's GG. And we WANT that "all factions destroyed, you did good you win" massage too. That was cool.
Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
Wait, what? So that's why all those factions with no signle fief are able to hire ALL THE MERCENARY CLANS IN CALRADIA AT ONCE from time to time... What is the reason behind it? So they may run around, burn villages and annoy you while you're busy with the war against other poweful factions?
It's not enough that they don't get destroyed once they lose all the fiefs, so you decided to give them almost half a million out of the blue??
Otherwise you won`t be busy enough to defend your kingdom 24/7 against non existent factions.
You seem to argue points that I haven't made. The 99% also seem rather off given the context (army AI and snowballing) - where the initial response to you by Gryphon, someone quite invested with snowballing, appears rather agreeable with the change made. Whatever the case, we will continue to observe discussions and feedback and make adjustments as we learn more.
IIRC warband lords did not have to actually run around to field an army again but rather had certain template of troops they respawned with. Naturally, they would still recruit after. So this is a good example of ai cheats being fine - at least for you - as they and the transition to more organic behavior hit a balance spot that you felt good about. Bannerlord, in principle, acts similarly (probably smaller initial template, but larger troop pools to restock with from garrison etc) but can ofc be balanced more.
Nothing against you Duh, I mean you´re the last one here talking to us, but we all know it´s going like this:
As someone (Flesson?) already said, you will change stuff that already fits TWs "TheVisionTM", everything else is getting ignored.
Last edited:
I wasn't referring to you but making a broad statement, at least I dont think I mentioned you by name but just replied. I have a lot of respect for some devs and think they do a good job and know it can be hard at time to get things done, having said that, there are certain things that are just mind blowing and you can't fathom why it's ever been done. I could give numerous examples, but what had happened over the last year and how my suggestions get ignored constantly why bother. There comes a time when you just get fed up and don't try as your ignored and I could give a "dozen" examples of things that "1000% need" to be changed and for 6-18 months, havent been touched. my area of 'expertise", I use that lightly is economy, trade, workshops and caravans as Ive spent a couple thousand hours just doing that and I have made numerous suggestions to changes to make them better and do this day only 1 thing was ever done and that was by mexxico. When you make multiple suggestions each patch which I've sent you my data and suggestions as well to Sadshogun and mexxico in the past and nothing is done. re you telling me after 2,000 hours trading and monitoring caravans and workshops, that none of my ideas to make things better can be implemented.
--Id love to keep chatting but I must get back to my Town, Ortysia once again has 1,700 prisoner in the dungeon that I need to sort through and sell since the tech team said that is how its always been
---#Clueless Yes there is a rule for 2 years clan parties always sold every prisoner, even lords when entering town, this is what happens when you know more than them and they "think" they are right
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/clan-parties-donating-prisoners.452998/
It's kind of funny and sad at the same time. They are legit annoying one of the most supporter people they have had. The worst part is, Flesson's frustrations and all of the data he collects and sends, still will never be considered in favor of "the vision".
I feel a little bad for the developers/faces they put in charge of voicing changes, updates, and engaging with the community though. Because no one is ever really mad at that person, but it's almost always going to come off that way with the sheer amount of problems and criticisms that people have.
tlowey
Sergeant at Arms
Totally agree with you and MostBlunted. Flesson is so helpful to all M&B players you only have to check his discord to see how helpful he is. Have to say though that the TW devs have a track record of ignoring the community wishes. So it not changing is no surprise.It's kind of funny and sad at the same time. They are legit annoying one of the most supporter people they have had. The worst part is, Flesson's frustrations and all of the data he collects and sends, still will never be considered in favor of "the vision".
I feel a little bad for the developers/faces they put in charge of voicing changes, updates, and engaging with the community though. Because no one is ever really mad at that person, but it's almost always going to come off that way with the sheer amount of problems and criticisms that people have.
Yeah its an awesome change, was always silly to watch AI armies pass by each other and not help when they needed it. Have yet to see a compelling argument to change it. Live patch shows its definitely not the reason for the snowballing we saw in the beta, so mexxico's legacy is fine.
Facts™
five bucks
Knight at Arms
@Flesson19 TW's changes to make AI gang up in sieges were good.
Territory changing hands quickly is not in itself a bad thing. What is bad is the effect on the player: if factions die off before the player has a chance to join them, or if one faction becomes too powerful by the time the player is ready to make a kingdom (Snowballing). On the other hand, if no territory changes hands, the map becomes boring (Stagnation).
In your own test Flesson, only 2 major cities were captured in 40 years. I don't think that has any of the things that are actually a problem about snowballing. Sure Western Empire became overpowered by the year 1200, but the average playthrough isn't meant to last that long.
So on that particular point I would disagree with you. But...
THIS is correct. We give TW targeted advice on how to fix problems with the game. We give it for months, years even. We suggest very straightforward fixes that address the core of the issue. All this seems to be ignored. Instead changes are made seemingly at random that introduce new issues. When a problem is addressed, it's often in a way that doesn't actually fix the core issue. Or it's a needlessly overcomplicated fix that took half a year to deliver when a simpler fix would have been just as fun and could be delivered much faster.
Territory changing hands quickly is not in itself a bad thing. What is bad is the effect on the player: if factions die off before the player has a chance to join them, or if one faction becomes too powerful by the time the player is ready to make a kingdom (Snowballing). On the other hand, if no territory changes hands, the map becomes boring (Stagnation).
In your own test Flesson, only 2 major cities were captured in 40 years. I don't think that has any of the things that are actually a problem about snowballing. Sure Western Empire became overpowered by the year 1200, but the average playthrough isn't meant to last that long.
So on that particular point I would disagree with you. But...
THIS is correct. We give TW targeted advice on how to fix problems with the game. We give it for months, years even. We suggest very straightforward fixes that address the core of the issue. All this seems to be ignored. Instead changes are made seemingly at random that introduce new issues. When a problem is addressed, it's often in a way that doesn't actually fix the core issue. Or it's a needlessly overcomplicated fix that took half a year to deliver when a simpler fix would have been just as fun and could be delivered much faster.
Would it be technically possible to make lords spawn in their own city or castle and take troops from their garrison when they respawn?
Or is that how it works today already?
Similar threads
