Sign this petition to add back in removed features

[NPC99]

Terco you are much more successful in indirect trolling and answering to others, take my place, I need to lay low from the forum cops (I am being watched, shhhh)

Oh, I'll take that as a compliment.  I also tell you that you have to know how to dance with the devil under the moonlight. It is also true that having the advice of my James Gordon particular in the city Uxkhal, sometimes speeds things up. 

TaleWorlds removed those features because they didn't work in the gameplay. I take their word for it. I don't want to see any of this back 

I don't, I think they've removed those because they couldn't figure out a way of making them work properly, likely due to technicalities rather than "unfitting" or "not fun"...

We have already commented it in several occasions; under my point of view the explanation of why they decided to eliminate the castle building was much more forceful and qualifying by means of the contribution of weighty reasons that the "explanation" of why the ambushes were not included.

Both features are problematic to implement due to how they should work. Castle building can be made, and it won't affect the game if they do it the same way that 1257ad modders did. Only a single castle per game. And there lies the problem imo, they would either force such castles into generic ones, or they'd have a massive overflow of unused resources from possible castles that were not picked for "building". Imho I'd totally support it even if it meant having a single spot only in which we could build one, but seeing as the community usually reacts to things, there would be a massive cry-out against that too... 

Ambushes, well, they should at least add them as an game option imo... Let the player decide when and if they want to get bothered by it... Cutting seems rather weird.

I expect it would have been one generic buildable 3 level castle per faction. Even so they would soon seem samey when sieging those constructed everywhere by the ai.

 

[assington]

There's always room for really cool DLC adding new features and mechanics, especially if Bannerlord has a good release on Steam

 

[xdj1nn]

Terco you are much more successful in indirect trolling and answering to others, take my place, I need to lay low from the forum cops (I am being watched, shhhh)

Oh, I'll take that as a compliment.  I also tell you that you have to know how to dance with the devil under the moonlight. It is also true that having the advice of my James Gordon particular in the city Uxkhal, sometimes speeds things up. 

TaleWorlds removed those features because they didn't work in the gameplay. I take their word for it. I don't want to see any of this back 

I don't, I think they've removed those because they couldn't figure out a way of making them work properly, likely due to technicalities rather than "unfitting" or "not fun"...

We have already commented it in several occasions; under my point of view the explanation of why they decided to eliminate the castle building was much more forceful and qualifying by means of the contribution of weighty reasons that the "explanation" of why the ambushes were not included.

Both features are problematic to implement due to how they should work. Castle building can be made, and it won't affect the game if they do it the same way that 1257ad modders did. Only a single castle per game. And there lies the problem imo, they would either force such castles into generic ones, or they'd have a massive overflow of unused resources from possible castles that were not picked for "building". Imho I'd totally support it even if it meant having a single spot only in which we could build one, but seeing as the community usually reacts to things, there would be a massive cry-out against that too... 

Ambushes, well, they should at least add them as an game option imo... Let the player decide when and if they want to get bothered by it... Cutting seems rather weird.

I expect it would have been one generic buildable 3 level castle per faction. Even so they would soon seem samey when sieging those constructed everywhere by the ai.

Well, they could add some isolated place where the faction owner is always the player and there one could build a caslte? It would work I think, although, as I've said, there will always be people against anything that alters base mechanics. So that would make such thing only possible by the player, if the player so chose to, requirements and time could be huge as to avoid cheap mechanics in favor of the player too... Once built the player gets forced into choosing a faction to serve or go independent, whereas when switching allegiances the castle always remain as a player's possession... If attacked, it could be treated as any other fief, in case the player loses it

 

[Orion]

Echoing xdj1nn, it would be sensible to restrict such a feature to the player. This solves the problem of cookie-cutter castles popping up across the map, though I would say a player should already be in a faction (or have created one) before they can begin construction of a castle. All land is owned (or at least claimed) by someone, and they won't let you build a major fortification on their land on a whim. You should only be able to build it on land you have a claim to yourself. You would also have to be capable of defending it against the many people who would obviously not want you to build it, which is easier to do when you have buddies backing you up.

 

[Do not look here]

All that talk about special player-only castle makes me miss The Wedding Dance. Entering the Imperial Palace for the first time was something special in that mod, damn.

 

[Memoefe]

Sign this petition to let them know WE WANT AMBUSHING NO CUTTING FEATURES

They know their jobs. If they removed it, there is a reason behind it.

 

[Mad Vader]

The real question is - is Taleworlds good enough at game design to be trusted that ambushing or castle-building can't be done without hassling the player or that it's too much effort? Do they have design sessions where a variety of people discuss design and review tester feedback, or are design decisions taken in a rush by a single person already burdened by firefighting development issues?
I can see how ambushing can become annoying after a while (or for some players), but this can be designed so that player has a choice to avoid ambushing (e.g. by having scout troops in the party or some high enough party skill). Mount and Blade needs variety in combat and ambushes are desirable to fill that need.
However, personal castle building is simply a must, even if it's a sizable effort. You can't overestimate how important for players is to customize their game. They need to find a way to do this.

 

[xdj1nn]

Echoing xdj1nn, it would be sensible to restrict such a feature to the player. This solves the problem of cookie-cutter castles popping up across the map, though I would say a player should already be in a faction (or have created one) before they can begin construction of a castle. All land is owned (or at least claimed) by someone, and they won't let you build a major fortification on their land on a whim. You should only be able to build it on land you have a claim to yourself. You would also have to be capable of defending it against the many people who would obviously not want you to build it, which is easier to do when you have buddies backing you up.

There you ruin my underlying evil plan Orion! If the player were to build a castle being factionless, well, he'd lose it almost instantly... HAve you ever tried to capture Dhirim before you have an established character? ALL HELL BREAKS LOSE, rushing Dhirim made me seek a new record of how many days I could hold it (it was a genuine playthrough I've made once), never made past 1 in-game week, the first big Siege all was lost, including some pieces of armor and weapons! hahahaha Although I've managed to win 2 or 3 sieges against single lords before the big one! YAY

 

[JuanNieve]

I would love to be able to customize the castles, at least the interior and maybe add extra improvements in the defense. I know that a lot of personalization will be a pain in the ass in the late game, but that the castle only needs to go from level 1 to 3, it makes me bored.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

There will also be the settlement projects that allow to influence the development of the castle and nearby village. It might just make a difference for the stats, not change the scene, but it will enable you to add a personal touch.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

The real question is - is Taleworlds good enough at game design to be trusted that ambushing or castle-building can't be done without hassling the player or that it's too much effort? Do they have design sessions where a variety of people discuss design and review tester feedback, or are design decisions taken in a rush by a single person already burdened by firefighting development issues?
I can see how ambushing can become annoying after a while (or for some players), but this can be designed so that player has a choice to avoid ambushing (e.g. by having scout troops in the party or some high enough party skill). Mount and Blade needs variety in combat and ambushes are desirable to fill that need.
However, personal castle building is simply a must, even if it's a sizable effort. You can't overestimate how important for players is to customize their game. They need to find a way to do this.

---
To be able to build only one castle on conquered land ala ad 1257; would be a satisfactory resolution halfway. Something that complements this formidable mechanics while giving us freedom would be to be able to design the structure of our castle, being us the architects. I am already seeing my Grunwalder castle aka infernal fortress 3.0 "you have no power here".

 

[578]

Can we stop discussing castle building already? It's gone, and it was ****e. If you honestly think it's realistic or fun to build every single village into a castle, go play a castle building simulator. I can understand why they removed it and it's a welcome addition. Map has strategic points, players should not have the option to create castles in every village, it will make the game easier and we all know how easy is late-game in warband when your character is an overpowered arrow throwing tank with 7 athletics.

 

[Orion]

That's kind of ignoring the last half page of posts, though, which are about building one castle in one place, plus JuanNieve suggesting customization. The customization point is spot on, considering the biggest money-maker in gaming for a while has been microtransactions for aesthetics. Even games with fixed characters, linear stories, and literary source material like the Witcher have aesthetic DLC/freeLC. Players eat it up.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Can we stop discussing castle building already? It's gone, and it was ****. If you honestly think it's realistic or fun to build every single village into a castle, go play a castle building simulator. I can understand why they removed it and it's a welcome addition. Map has strategic points, players should not have the option to create castles in every village, it will make the game easier and we all know how easy is late-game in warband when your character is an overpowered arrow throwing tank with 7 athletics.

We have all resigned ourselves. The question, at least what I mentioned at the beginning, would be to reintroduce the concept of "castle building". Personally, a solution to this " issue " would be to deal with it in the same way as in ad1257. A single construction, on conquered land, not before having formed a faction or belonging to an existing one. A mixture between the mechanics of ad1257 with the shelter of VC, with the possibility of "improvement" and taking it to the extreme through the customization of the distribution of walls and other elements...oh mama  .
The problem; the handmade scenes.

 

[xdj1nn]

Can we stop discussing castle building already? It's gone, and it was ****. If you honestly think it's realistic or fun to build every single village into a castle, go play a castle building simulator. I can understand why they removed it and it's a welcome addition. Map has strategic points, players should not have the option to create castles in every village, it will make the game easier and we all know how easy is late-game in warband when your character is an overpowered arrow throwing tank with 7 athletics.

You're off, late-game in warband is boring, not "easy", plain boring... Castle building would add depth for late game, something to do, in fact my question backtracks to a very basic thing here, why on earth are you so concerned about "how easy" a single player game will be? Have you no restraints to make it harder? Every sandbox suffers from this, so it's a pretty dull rant if you ask me... Besides, one can always use Cheat Engine anyway... 

On top of that, what should be a concerning subject towards difficulty is the AI, pure and simple. Not the ability to build castles. Still, Terco's resolution is good, 1257ad has never broken the balance when I've built castles there, a single castle out of a single village while creating a new village for the old castle changed absolutely nothing balance-wise, nothing was made easier at all, I just managed to gain a second fief, better one, within a faction without going to war, instead spending tons of money...

 

[FBohler]

There are ways to circumvent problems in these features, TW is just downgrading the game right now.

 

[lolbash]

To the people who still are discussing adding back in castle building despite Taleworlds saying that implementing was buggy, Bannerlord will ship with modding tools at release, such as model and scene editors. Why not just make your own castle there and not beg the Developers to re add in a feature that they said was too buggy to implement?

 

[Mad Vader]

For one thing, Taleworlds employees are paid to do this and it's in their interest to ship highly-rated features.
Volunteer modders should not be expected to make up for oversights in the base game (although they will). They'd rather use their valuable and limited time to add content that inspires them and others. Even other things than boob physics.

 

[578]

Can we stop discussing castle building already? It's gone, and it was ****. If you honestly think it's realistic or fun to build every single village into a castle, go play a castle building simulator. I can understand why they removed it and it's a welcome addition. Map has strategic points, players should not have the option to create castles in every village, it will make the game easier and we all know how easy is late-game in warband when your character is an overpowered arrow throwing tank with 7 athletics.

You're off, late-game in warband is boring, not "easy", plain boring... Castle building would add depth for late game, something to do, in fact my question backtracks to a very basic thing here, why on earth are you so concerned about "how easy" a single player game will be? Have you no restraints to make it harder? Every sandbox suffers from this, so it's a pretty dull rant if you ask me... Besides, one can always use Cheat Engine anyway... 

On top of that, what should be a concerning subject towards difficulty is the AI, pure and simple. Not the ability to build castles. Still, Terco's resolution is good, 1257ad has never broken the balance when I've built castles there, a single castle out of a single village while creating a new village for the old castle changed absolutely nothing balance-wise, nothing was made easier at all, I just managed to gain a second fief, better one, within a faction without going to war, instead spending tons of money...

Not really. Late game warband is extremely easy. Pack arrows and you can get more than 100 kills in a single siege. 100 kills. By one person. Dead-precise accuracy with bows and a crosshair makes the game laughably easy. Castle building adds nothing but more ez-mode tactics to the map. Castle customization for existing castles I have no problem with, but creating a castle on every village, like it was before they removed it, sounded rather bad. I like hard games, dude. Dark souls, Sekiro, all finished on NG++++. Hard games award you with satisfaction unlike gimmicky features like castle building on every single village. Grinding for money to build something you will rarely see is not fun. Or realistic.

Every sandbox suffers from this, so it's a pretty dull rant if you ask me... Besides, one can always use Cheat Engine anyway... 

With that logic then every sandbox should be bad, because you make it sound like its set in stone to be that way. Cheat engine? lol dude, please. Who uses cheats on proper playthroughs.

 

[xdj1nn]

Can we stop discussing castle building already? It's gone, and it was ****. If you honestly think it's realistic or fun to build every single village into a castle, go play a castle building simulator. I can understand why they removed it and it's a welcome addition. Map has strategic points, players should not have the option to create castles in every village, it will make the game easier and we all know how easy is late-game in warband when your character is an overpowered arrow throwing tank with 7 athletics.

You're off, late-game in warband is boring, not "easy", plain boring... Castle building would add depth for late game, something to do, in fact my question backtracks to a very basic thing here, why on earth are you so concerned about "how easy" a single player game will be? Have you no restraints to make it harder? Every sandbox suffers from this, so it's a pretty dull rant if you ask me... Besides, one can always use Cheat Engine anyway... 

On top of that, what should be a concerning subject towards difficulty is the AI, pure and simple. Not the ability to build castles. Still, Terco's resolution is good, 1257ad has never broken the balance when I've built castles there, a single castle out of a single village while creating a new village for the old castle changed absolutely nothing balance-wise, nothing was made easier at all, I just managed to gain a second fief, better one, within a faction without going to war, instead spending tons of money...

Not really. Late game warband is extremely easy. Pack arrows and you can get more than 100 kills in a single siege. 100 kills. By one person. Dead-precise accuracy with bows and a crosshair makes the game laughably easy. Castle building adds nothing but more ez-mode tactics to the map. Castle customization for existing castles I have no problem with, but creating a castle on every village, like it was before they removed it, sounded rather bad. I like hard games, dude. Dark souls, Sekiro, all finished on NG++++. Hard games award you with satisfaction unlike gimmicky features like castle building on every single village. Grinding for money to build something you will rarely see is not fun. Or realistic.

Every sandbox suffers from this, so it's a pretty dull rant if you ask me... Besides, one can always use Cheat Engine anyway... 

With that logic then every sandbox should be bad, because you make it sound like its set in stone to be that way. Cheat engine? lol dude, please. Who uses cheats on proper playthroughs.

Many triple A Open World games disagree with your statement by sheer recurrence of base-building. The Assassins Creed franchise, with few exceptions, all feature something of the sort. Dragon Age Inquisition. Dragon Age Origins with the DLC, Mass Effect (to some extent with the Ship), a Few MMOs also adhered to the idea (although all have this very poorly implemented, except maybe for ancient MMOs like Ultima), etc. Base building is a lot of fun for a lot of people, taking your own tastes as the pinnacle of the truth is very arrogant, and an illusion. Sure, having a gazillion castles being built in a single campaign would be quite stupid, but having a single one following most suggestions in here, that can be done and it'll add value. And as always, M&B is a sandbox game, if a minority hates certain features they can completely ignore them, can't they? 

Also, adding back features won't "increase development time", what has increased it is their lack of Dead Lines and the recurrence of starting over on many segments of the game, meaning wasted time.

On the secondary point there, any Sandbox is easy no matter what in late-game. Find me a single Sandbox game that isn't and I'll send you a trophy... Besides, there's a niche for hard games already filled with other franchises, M&B was never about entering the same genre as Dark Souls, so your comparison is much like comparing bananas with beans... NG+ is a cheap trick to keep people playing a game that ISN'T A SANDBOX, on top of that, games you've quoted are all rail-tracked, not sandboxes.

PS: I own games like Dark Souls, and I play them on a completely different mindset than M&B, M&B is about RPing, not about getting challenged, and tbh, after beating Dark Souls a few NG+'s onwards, any game gets quite easy if they feature similar mechanics... Still, the real challenge for any game will always lie within MP, not SP.