Perks Semantics

[Death2Tyrants]

It's a minor point, but I'd appreciate it if you stick to your naming conventions. Formation Leader is better than Captain. Lieutenant is also better than Captain. Captain is a word more associated with Party Leader.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

The grammar for Crossbow perk "Sheriff" could be sharpened.

Troops in your formation deal 10% more damage against (foot soldiers with crossbows).

I'm assuming you mean

Troops in your formation with crossbows deal 10% more damage against foot soldiers.

You might also want to swap out all instances of "infantry" and substitute with "foot soldier". Even better if you just said Crossbow equipped Troops in your formation deal 10% more damage with crossbows against foot soldiers so the text is more uniform.

 

[Askorti]

Captain is a word more associated with Party Leader.

According to whom? You? What is your basis for this assertion?

 

[MostBlunted]

The only real captain for me is:

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

According to whom? You? What is your basis for this assertion?

I was trying to make my own assertion but I got tripped up. Guts and Casca are both captains in the Band of the hawk, but are they more like party leaders and the Band is more the Clan? Then it's more complicated because it's translated Manga, so who knows what exact word describes them from the author?

You might also want to swap out all instances of "infantry" and substitute with "foot soldier".

Problem is, some perks work only for INFANTRY as the game tags some units and some work for "foot soldiers" as all unmounted units.

I agree in general though that there should be a thorough re-write and streamlining of terms for perks. It would have been nice to have less types too, or rather say just have all "party role"-skill perks work for the party role and not have "party leader" and "clan Leader" perks mixed in. But probably they're not gonna change actual perk effects at this point..... but then again they did just revise uncanny insight to be for scout rather then party leader.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

According to whom? You? What is your basis for this assertion?

General english parlance. A captain is generally the leader of the whole band. When you confer the rank of "captain" on someone, it denotes a leader not a subordinate.

A "formation" is very much a subordinate role, ergo, Captain is the wrong rank to use. Subcommander, Lieutenant, Officer, etc are all better choices.

Problem is, some perks work only for INFANTRY as the game tags some units and some work for "foot soldiers" as all unmounted units.

I agree in general though that there should be a thorough re-write and streamlining of terms for perks. It would have been nice to have less types too, or rather say just have all "party role"-skill perks work for the party role and not have "party leader" and "clan Leader" perks mixed in. But probably they're not gonna change actual perk effects at this point..... but then again they did just revise uncanny insight to be for scout rather then party leader.

I gathered as much. Perhaps they should try and use mounted and unmounted units then. A standard approach to their terms would make things clearer for everyone. As is, most of the perks don't feel like they add enough to make any difference.

 

[lukethisup]

I notice this often, like for me the polearm perks Cavalry/Pikeman have a description which says "Increase polearm damage by 2% while mounted OR Increase polearm damage by 2%". I'm not sure if the pikeman skill applies only to being unmounted, or if because of the phrasing it would still unintentionally buff mounted PA damage for the player? This is just one of the quickest examples i usually find myself coming across.

Perks need to be revamped to be more clear on what they affect. I would really like to see encyclopedia entries for each perk so that you can click on any of them to get a better idea and full description of what it's going to be doing to your character/party. I'd enjoy examples, even, to help players like myself who only choose one perk path every single time because I see 0 benefit to the other 50% of the perks.

The balance of perks really needs to be addressed too, to make alternate perks more fruitful, but that's a discussion to be ignored/shot down by the devs in another thread

 

[Earth Dragon]

I was trying to make my own assertion but I got tripped up. Guts and Casca are both captains in the Band of the hawk, but are they more like party leaders and the Band is more the Clan? Then it's more complicated because it's translated Manga, so who knows what exact word describes them from the author?


Problem is, some perks work only for INFANTRY as the game tags some units and some work for "foot soldiers" as all unmounted units.

I agree in general though that there should be a thorough re-write and streamlining of terms for perks. It would have been nice to have less types too, or rather say just have all "party role"-skill perks work for the party role and not have "party leader" and "clan Leader" perks mixed in. But probably they're not gonna change actual perk effects at this point..... but then again they did just revise uncanny insight to be for scout rather then party leader.

Hard disagree. This is more for min/max ninnies and less for how this game was originally design to operate.

I feel they need to go the opposite direction and not have Scout perks so “scout assignment” Heavy and ping off of other assignments, from personal perks to Party Leader to Governor. The min/max crowd has had too much pull on some of these directions because the point should be not everyone can do everything, and not all those points should be going to waste if no longer in that role. I love the smattering of Governor perks all over the tree, as different types of characters can give different levels insight.

In general, I’d like to see all perks have a personal or party leader component and not these “Scout/Scout” set-ups

 

[Askorti]

General english parlance. A captain is generally the leader of the whole band. When you confer the rank of "captain" on someone, it denotes a leader not a subordinate.

Problem is, that the party leaders in Bannerlord are the high ranking nobles. And a captain, while a leader of a band, is pretty much always a subordinate to someone in a wider military structure. Meanwhile party-leading nobles are closer to generals than they are to captains. Some of the Imperial leaders are even called archons(if memory servers me right. Could be from a mod that I used to play with actually, so someone might want to fact-check me on that), which to my knowledge denotes someone of a much higher status than what you would call a captain.

 

[JunKeteer]

Yeah, perk system is very poorly thought out. Trying to fit all these different 'perks bonuses' into one system yet only giving perks an A or B choice, which is already restricted by their own conditions (party leader/personal/clan leader/captain/party role) so there's so many skills that are rendered completely useless for both the player and AI.
Ie. companions that can't use clan leader perks or the player can't use a few (which is the dumbest part), only one can use the party role given how it blocks others from gaining that skill exp, general nonsense groupings, etc...

So many times, it's picking the least worst of the perks as it seems the perk assignments were decided at random.

I shouldn't have to pick a perk between something personal and something external (ie governing, leader ones, etc...). They should've made every perk choice give at least a personal buff, then maybe the secondary bonus is related to governing, leader, caravan/captain, party role, etc...So that, even if your companion can't benefit from one aspect, they still get some upgrade when they level. Or better yet, they should've been completely separate from the beginning and it's clear it wasn't really thought out or tested before it was put in place.
Not to mention, fitting clan leader perks in that same system is so stupid as it really only applies to the player; make clan leader perk choices come with each clan tier upgrade or something.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Titles are just titles.

Even in modern militaries Captain doesn’t mean the same thing.

In the US Air Force Captain is 3 ranks lower then in the US Navy, something that could confuse someone if watching the new Top Gun. So it’s whatever designation someone chooses it to be, not some absolute to all systems

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Problem is, that the party leaders in Bannerlord are the high ranking nobles. And a captain, while a leader of a band, is pretty much always a subordinate to someone in a wider military structure. Meanwhile party-leading nobles are closer to generals than they are to captains. Some of the Imperial leaders are even called archons(if memory servers me right. Could be from a mod that I used to play with actually, so someone might want to fact-check me on that), which to my knowledge denotes someone of a much higher status than what you would call a captain.

Yea well, within the context of the "party", the captain is the leader of the party.

Titles are just titles.

Even in modern militaries Captain doesn’t mean the same thing.

In the US Air Force Captain is 3 ranks lower then in the US Navy, something that could confuse someone if watching the new Top Gun. So it’s whatever designation someone chooses it to be, not some absolute to all systems

The rank Captain has a naval origin. On a boat, there can only ever be one Captain.

And no, titles aren't just titles. They serve to illustrate the hierarchy.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Oh and before you go on about armies, there aren't any perks for generals.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Yea well, within the context of the "party", the captain is the leader of the party.



The rank Captain has a naval origin. On a boat, there can only ever be one Captain.

And no, titles aren't just titles. They serve to illustrate the hierarchy.

That Heirarchy is however the architect of the structure decides it to be. Captain, as I said if you could read, is 3 ranks lower in the Air Force and Army in the US. So if you want to join the Army and call your Colonel a Captain, even though one is a lower position, be my guest, but you likely wouldn’t last long.

Captain here is more associated with the land usage as a designation of one in charge of a battalion or other large organization of troops. Why would they lean towards the naval usage when you aren’t controlling a navy in this game anyway?

 

[Apocal]

Problem is, that the party leaders in Bannerlord are the high ranking nobles. And a captain, while a leader of a band, is pretty much always a subordinate to someone in a wider military structure. Meanwhile party-leading nobles are closer to generals than they are to captains. Some of the Imperial leaders are even called archons(if memory servers me right. Could be from a mod that I used to play with actually, so someone might want to fact-check me on that), which to my knowledge denotes someone of a much higher status than what you would call a captain.

Archon is the empire's noble title.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Hard disagree. This is more for min/max ninnies

Casuals GET OUT ?

less for how this game was originally design to operate.

I don't care, I want it to be good and I also don't see how you can say that as all demo'd versions had party roles (intending to have even more).

 

[Death2Tyrants]

That Heirarchy is however the architect of the structure decides it to be. Captain, as I said if you could read, is 3 ranks lower in the Air Force and Army in the US. So if you want to join the Army and call your Colonel a Captain, even though one is a lower position, be my guest, but you likely wouldn’t last long.

There's no need to be rude.

Of course the hierarchy is however the architect of the structure decides it to be. TW could call privates Generals and generals privates. Naturally, I'm also free to suggest they do otherwise. We might as well all pack up and leave if we aren't allowed to make suggestions here.

Captain here is more associated with the land usage as a designation of one in charge of a battalion or other large organization of troops. Why would they lean towards the naval usage when you aren’t controlling a navy in this game anyway?

I was merely pointing out the origins of the rank "Captain" as you were discussing the US Air Force and Army. If it wasn't clear, I'm suggesting that the historical use is more pertinent than the modern (the game is set in medieval).

Has anyone played multiplayer Captain's Match?

 

[Earth Dragon]

Casuals GET OUT ?

I don't care, I want it to be good and I also don't see how you can say that as all demo'd versions had party roles (intending to have even more).

I can say it as a matter of precedence: all skill perks should have value outside you performing that role, whether that be your person, as a captain, or whatever other capacity.

Players shouldn’t be penalized for having pips starting in scouting. Instead of it being a veteran move to just avoid those, they should make all perks valuable outside the role. This allows for much better role-play versus “gaming the system” and just designing characters with min/max builds. Thus, I’d prefer all trees had Governor associated perks within the first 100 skill points, Party Leader perks within the same, and no perks being an absolute on a role, to include the above.

Additionally, there should be a Scout boost perk in the Riding tree, in the Athletics tree, and other smatterings, just like Engineer and Quartermaster have sprinkled skills outside their main stat. Same goes for Surgeon. If some perks need triple bonuses to make it work, so be it.

These need to be dynamic, allowing different characters to be different, unique things, with no possible way to do, get, or be it all in any field. Governor and Party Leader perks are so much better for it at this stage. Let the four party roles follow suit

THAT’S an interesting system, not just the one stop shop some want skills to be

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I can say it as a matter of precedence: all skill perks should have value outside you performing that role, whether that be your person, as a captain, or whatever other capacity.

Players shouldn’t be penalized for having pips starting in scouting. Instead of it being a veteran move to just avoid those, they should make all perks valuable outside the role. This allows for much better role-play versus “gaming the system” and just designing characters with min/max builds. Thus, I’d prefer all trees had Governor associated perks within the first 100 skill points, Party Leader perks within the same, and no perks being an absolute on a role, to include the above.

Additionally, there should be a Scout boost perk in the Riding tree, in the Athletics tree, and other smatterings, just like Engineer and Quartermaster have sprinkled skills outside their main stat. Same goes for Surgeon. If some perks need triple bonuses to make it work, so be it.

These need to be dynamic, allowing different characters to be different, unique things, with no possible way to do, get, or be it all in any field. Governor and Party Leader perks are so much better for it at this stage. Let the four party roles follow suit

THAT’S an interesting system, not just the one stop shop some want skills to be

Okay, I agree with this now that you've elaborated.

 

[JunKeteer]

I can say it as a matter of precedence: all skill perks should have value outside you performing that role, whether that be your person, as a captain, or whatever other capacity.

Players shouldn’t be penalized for having pips starting in scouting. Instead of it being a veteran move to just avoid those, they should make all perks valuable outside the role. This allows for much better role-play versus “gaming the system” and just designing characters with min/max builds. Thus, I’d prefer all trees had Governor associated perks within the first 100 skill points, Party Leader perks within the same, and no perks being an absolute on a role, to include the above.

Additionally, there should be a Scout boost perk in the Riding tree, in the Athletics tree, and other smatterings, just like Engineer and Quartermaster have sprinkled skills outside their main stat. Same goes for Surgeon. If some perks need triple bonuses to make it work, so be it.

These need to be dynamic, allowing different characters to be different, unique things, with no possible way to do, get, or be it all in any field. Governor and Party Leader perks are so much better for it at this stage. Let the four party roles follow suit

THAT’S an interesting system, not just the one stop shop some want skills to be

Exactly, right now, perks are randomly put in random tiers/levels with no cohesiveness - and some perks (both A or B) both literally have no effect sometimes for the player or companion or AI.

Have all perks choices give at least a personal buff/bonus, and secondary can be governor/party leader/role/etc...