Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine II

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Akka

Regular
Best answers
0
While that sounds nice in theory in practice you rarely meet a “high level trader" in combat. Also the difficulty based on skill level just doesn't add up. Shielded units do tend to block a bit more often than unshielded one's but doesn't matter if I I fight a looter with pitchfork or a top tier two handed weapon welder, they won't block ever (maybe one in 10 hits will be blocked), they just keep on trying to attack even though they are locked into stagger from every player made attack which obviously will land quicker.

So the rare trader argument aside, and if the skill level bonus can't be adjusted further (as I said without a shield, troops rarely block regardless if the skill is 20 or 200) the combat was better when it was solely based on char level.
Completely disagree with using character level. If you have a "one handed weapon" skill, then it's painfully obvious that combat ability while using a one handed weapon should be by USING THE SKILL WITH WHICH THE WEAPON IS USED and not the arbitrary number that can be raised through dealing with logistical problems, scouting a road or patching wounds.

There might be a problem with AI not being good enough at a particular skill level, but that's just a problem of TUNING, not of CONCEPT. Increasing the amount of blocking per skill point doesn't require scrapping using skill level and replacing it by character level.
I've yet to see the fabled trader in a combat mission in bannerlord.
That's completely beside the point.
If down the road we can encounter routinely high-level traders with huge trade skill and very low weapon ones, I don't want them to be godly fighters. We have a system making sense but inadequately tuned ? Let's tune it better rather than destroy the sense it has. Seriously...

@froggyluv So you decided to stop using arguments altogether. 😂
The argument that "high skill in weapon" should translate in "character skilled in weapon usage" seems to be pretty solid, to the point of being tautological. YOUR point, on the other hand, that "I know very well how to sell goods, so I should be very dangerous in combat" IS completely stupid.

Don't throw rocks in a house of glass ?
 

Larmantine

Sergeant at Arms
WBNW
Best answers
0
Completely disagree with using character level. If you have a "one handed weapon" skill, then it's painfully obvious that combat ability while using a one handed weapon should be by USING THE SKILL WITH WHICH THE WEAPON IS USED and not the arbitrary number that can be raised through dealing with logistical problems, scouting a road or patching wounds.
I am not saying that the system of char level is better than the one we have now. In theory OF COURSE the current system makes more sense, is more realistic, and should work very well. But it doesn't. This is probably the fifth time mentioning it, there is no discernible difference in combat proficiency of troops currently. While the previous system was flawed you could at least notice the difference. Not saying the devs should put that system back in.

If you put strip away the equipment from a legionary and a recruit, put the same rags on them and give them a club and fight them individually, you couldn't tell who was who because you'd kill them in the same two hits. The only thing you MIGHT notice is that the legionary would attempt to swing at you a bit quicker than the recruit. That is all. That is all there is to this current system.
 

scarface52

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I am not saying that the system of char level is better than the one we have now. In theory OF COURSE the current system makes more sense, is more realistic, and should work very well. But it doesn't. This is probably the fifth time mentioning it, there is no discernible difference in combat proficiency of troops currently. While the previous system was flawed you could at least notice the difference. Not saying the devs should put that system back in.

If you put strip away the equipment from a legionary and a recruit, put the same rags on them and give them a club and fight them individually, you couldn't tell who was who because you'd kill them in the same two hits. The only thing you MIGHT notice is that the legionary would attempt to swing at you a bit quicker than the recruit. That is all. That is all there is to this current system.
I finally understand your point. You want this system to be tuned in a similar way to the one we had in the launch. I can completely agree with that. When the new system introduced overall combat skill for the AI has degraded greatly. Even in highest difficulty I can't find myself against any challenging opponents. I wouldn't even surprised to hear if there was a bug that makes them all low skilled.

Real question I have here is that if this is intentional or not because if you were to silently remove this mechanic and make every AI agent same in melee combat I bet no one would notice.
 

Akka

Regular
Best answers
0
I am not saying that the system of char level is better than the one we have now. In theory OF COURSE the current system makes more sense, is more realistic, and should work very well. But it doesn't. This is probably the fifth time mentioning it, there is no discernible difference in combat proficiency of troops currently. While the previous system was flawed you could at least notice the difference. Not saying the devs should put that system back in.
That's why I said this :

There might be a problem with AI not being good enough at a particular skill level, but that's just a problem of TUNING, not of CONCEPT. Increasing the amount of blocking per skill point doesn't require scrapping using skill level and replacing it by character level.

Which is a part we seem to both agree.
If you put strip away the equipment from a legionary and a recruit, put the same rags on them and give them a club and fight them individually, you couldn't tell who was who because you'd kill them in the same two hits. The only thing you MIGHT notice is that the legionary would attempt to swing at you a bit quicker than the recruit. That is all. That is all there is to this current system.
Seems, again, that the problem is just tuning. The appropriate feedback should be :
"skill points don't affect the AI enough, even at high level it's still pretty ineffective" and NOT "the previous system based on character level was better"

Fundamental difference :grin:
 

Kipsta

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
The argument that "high skill in weapon" should translate in "character skilled in weapon usage" seems to be pretty solid, to the point of being tautological. YOUR point, on the other hand, that "I know very well how to sell goods, so I should be very dangerous in combat" IS completely stupid.

Don't throw rocks in a house of glass ?
I made that statement in the context that such a character does not exist in Bannerlord, nor can or will it ever exist if you had bothered reading everything I wrote you could have known that, but it's obvious you choose to ignore everything you can't argue against and instead focus on commenting on something you took out of context. Genius.
 

Larmantine

Sergeant at Arms
WBNW
Best answers
0
Seems, again, that the problem is just tuning. The appropriate feedback should be :
"skill points don't affect the AI enough, even at high level it's still pretty ineffective" and NOT "the previous system based on character level was better"

Fundamental difference :grin:
I concur. This is what I call a fruitful discussion. Feel free to post it on the suggestion boards, I might do it myself later with all these arguments in mind.
 

froggyluv

Master Knight
NW
Best answers
0
@froggyluv So you decided to stop using arguments altogether. 😂 If you seriously don't realize what part of your previous argument was clearly fictional, I feel sorry for you. At least the cage match was real in your mind, right? The only "high level trader" in Bannerlord is the already mentioned Caravan Master who would have plenty of combat experience under his belt given the regular situation in Calradia. Level is arbitrarily assigned to npc who aren't lords in the first place, but trade isn't even a skill which can be utilized by non-lords. A high level trader can therefore not exist in Bannerlord at all. Like holy **** imagine trying to argue against this. 😂
I think the word you were looking for is theoretical. It sounded like you were referring to my friend i was using as an example in a theoretical situation. Yes I know the High Level Trader doesnt exist but your overall point of wanting High Level Characters with Low Weapons skills to be highly proficient is what i was arguing against.
 

Discount_Blade

Recruit
Best answers
0
I think the word you were looking for is theoretical. It sounded like you were referring to my friend i was using as an example in a theoretical situation. Yes I know the High Level Trader doesnt exist but your overall point of wanting High Level Characters with Low Weapons skills to be highly proficient is what i was arguing against.
I haven't paid much attention to this thread, but the nonsense of the knife fighter should also be able to fight with a katana very well is ****ing nonsense. That's like picking up a crossbow as Master, and also be extension being able to call themselves a proficient marksman with a scoped rifle. I hope people don't actually think that's possible cuz if so then you're all morons.
 

CrazyElf

Recruit
Best answers
0
Combat AI level is determined by the skill level the character has for their equipped weapon. At the beginning of EA it was only based on the character level - which meant that a high-level trader would fare just as well as a veteran warrior. Tournaments are currently a variable experience, because they draw participants from the garrison as well as present parties (alongside heroes in the settlement). We are considering to introduce dedicated tournament troops to facilitate a more steady challenge.

\One major change I think that is needed for the autoresolve is to take into account the skills and equipment of the troops, not just the fact that troops are mounted and their level.
 

froggyluv

Master Knight
NW
Best answers
0
\One major change I think that is needed for the autoresolve is to take into account the skills and equipment of the troops, not just the fact that troops are mounted and their level.
THIS^^^

Many mods have been doing this since M&B1 - Devs please commit to this or else the strategy layer of the game feels thin and artficial
 

Kangamangus

Sergeant
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I don't want to be that guy, but I think making the game more customisable i.e. Giving the option to disable death and birth etc. Is a bad direction of game development. Splintering like this will make the developers waste more time on features and their potential bug fixes for some criebabies who expect this to be warband 2 not bannerlord. Just the same as it was with autoblock - flaming the devs and giving them ridiculously bad feedback just because they get killed easily. 1v1 you can defeat any npc even if you didn't have the option to block at all. Think of it like this, if you were swarmed by 5 or more people during a siege, or on a battlefield ofc you couldn't defeat them all even if you were obi wan kebobi. Death and manual block makes you appreciate your own in game char more. Wanna live - stay out of the heat of the battle or surrender or run away, like an actual person would. The game should have one kind of gameplay in mind even in a sandbox environment. Otherwise it becomes impossible to finish and playtest in terms of time and concordantly in resources.

Edit: typo
You realize that Bannerlord offers much more than Warband in terms of gameplay, graphics, and other improvements than just 'aging and death,' correct?

This isn't Crusader Kings, no matter how many sweaty virgins want it to be.

If you die, your game should be deleted. Not all players' games. Just the people that want to make everyone else lose their time and progress if they have a life outside of make-believe sword game.

Ironically, it's taken more time and problem fixing to IMPLEMENT the aging and death mechanics. The game was working fine without them. It can be done. The problem you insist exists isn't real.
 

Larmantine

Sergeant at Arms
WBNW
Best answers
0
You realize that Bannerlord offers much more than Warband in terms of gameplay, graphics, and other improvements than just 'aging and death,' correct?

This isn't Crusader Kings, no matter how many sweaty virgins want it to be.

If you die, your game should be deleted. Not all players' games. Just the people that want to make everyone else lose their time and progress if they have a life outside of make-believe sword game.

Ironically, it's taken more time and problem fixing to IMPLEMENT the aging and death mechanics. The game was working fine without them. It can be done. The problem you insist exists isn't real.
Bannerlord is not Warband 2. It's not the kind of game where you just expect better and bigger things, its not linear. Its not half life 1 vs half life 2 (in no way I am attempting to say anything bad about those games, they are amazing). Those are linear games, this is a sandbox game, and they want to present a different sandbox experience in this game not the same, but better as it was in WB. Its a different game but a similar concept. The devs themselves have said this too. Look how many features that were present in Warband are not present in BL. And thats okay, IMO anyway, as once again, its a different game.

I've never played crusader kings, so I cannot relate to what you are talking about.

Well, I could start going on about how MB games aren't your casual games, and making it more accessible to a wider audience sacrifices gameplay. But I suppose you are right in some respect, regarding the progression aspect. I was talking about the birth and death of characters or lords more specifically not the player char.

I think tits just the way TW changes their minds about their game all the time, if you look at the early blogs and videos you'd see that the features were way different and what we have now is a bit barebones. But that is besides the point now.
 

TechnoSarge

Regular
Best answers
0
Would love to see all those things return in some form, but I think the strategic lord dialogue should be a near-top priority. I really think it added depth to the game, added value to the whole renown/reputation/standing system and added depth to gameplay as a vassal. Even things like asking where lords are and requiring you to track them down was immersive. I know that part somewhat exists in Bannerlord (encyclopedia has their last known location), but it just doesn't quite feel the same.

Deserters and manhunters in some form should be higher priority too. Maybe they could work it into kingdom roles for vassals. You could give priority "focuses" to the lords. Like a lord given the role of manhunter/sheriff would prioritize a smaller, faster party and would patrol around either their given fiefs, designated fiefs, or the entire kingdom looking for looters, deserters, and bandits. The "focus" idea could be expanded to other things too that would give you a little more strategic campaign control over your kingdom
I would create Deserter parties be created from those who routed out of battles/sieges. Their buddies saw them run... and won't welcome them back! To avoid having little groups of 2-3 running all over, permit them to coalesce when they see each other. They probably dropped their weapons when they ran, so they'll have to use a hodgepodge just like Looters, but they have had military training, so they would be more effective & dangerous than Looters.
 

five bucks

Regular
Best answers
0
They probably dropped their weapons when they ran, so they'll have to use a hodgepodge just like Looters
I don't think that's necessary, let them keep their military weapons. The point of having Deserters is to have an uncommon neutral map enemy that's much more of a risk/reward to fight than your average Looter goomba. If they don't have their proper weapons they aren't going to feel very different to fight than Looters since armor and training barely makes a difference in this game, so that will mean fighting Deserters has almost the same risk and reward as fighting looters (since you won't be able to take military-grade weapons as a reward after the battle).
 

humility925

Veteran
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
An option to disable birth, death and aging.


Finally, I hope soon, it's bring back Mount/blade/warband gameplay back, along many ton mod because of that since Mount and Blade and Warband player is immortal while still gameplay is ton of fun.

What about character import and export like older game?
 

Ulrick011

Recruit
Best answers
0
I was curious have you tried adding more towns, villages, and castles to fill in the empty places in the map. Maybe even try and add another faction or two. Cause you do have those big islands in the middle of the lake between the western empire, southern empire and the Aserai. Maybe a long forgotten city and you can do a quest or just a single town. Or even add something in thats like the vikings or other raiding like faction on those small islands to the west. Even if it's in future DLC after the game leaves development stage. I'd love to the see the map filled up rather have a lot of empty space.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Best answers
28
I was curious have you tried adding more towns, villages, and castles to fill in the empty places in the map. Maybe even try and add another faction or two. Cause you do have those big islands in the middle of the lake between the western empire, southern empire and the Aserai. Maybe a long forgotten city and you can do a quest or just a single town. Or even add something in thats like the vikings or other raiding like faction on those small islands to the west. Even if it's in future DLC after the game leaves development stage. I'd love to the see the map filled up rather have a lot of empty space.
TW are still working to complete unique scenes for every existing settlement. I doubt they'll add any new ones during EA.