Statement regarding Singleplayer IV

Users who are viewing this thread

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
but they've refused to talk about this since EA came out and I don't think they'll ever will.
It may not be to the degree that you desire, but we have talked about and shared updates of this nature. For instance, the notification offers introduced a new line of interaction/event.
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
Once a good chunk of the previous list of items (release plans) has been shared with players.
ok, just sking to know when you guys going fix few things that totally kill immersion, aka clone wars, haha for instance.
and new things, i played after the official release for a time, but i gotta say some things don't let me go as far 5 years in game. During peace times there should be implement more things, you know. Kingdom, ruler government for example
be able to do more, you know? the game you guys made isn't just about battles anymore, with the addition to some features

it's Lacking a lot of stuff
 
Last edited:

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
Are balance tweaks to auto-resolve" going to fix the issue of parties who have a massive troop quantity and quality advantage taking casualties they shouldn't be? As seen in this thread. https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...ie-less-in-autocalc-simulated-battles.451576/
For auto-resolve, we want to explore topics like terrain, combat type and captain perk boni/mali. Ideally, this will provide players with greater agency over the outcome of such battles. We are also looking at a greater effect of the medicine skill effect for the survivability of higher tier troops. (It already has a bias towards them now.)
Are "tweaks to companion variety" going to include more companion spawns, or companions with better starting stats, so we don't have to grind them for so many long hours?
The focus here is on better availability for a greater variety of wanderer types. AFAIK the spawns are not increased in count but in frequency. Currently, they are intentionally low level to allow players to customize / develop them to their needs. Personally, I would love seeing a few higher level/skill companions dotted in between.
Are "tweaks to raiding" going to make it more worthwhile to raid, rather than just the contents of the village market?
Yes, that is the intention of these tweaks.
Will "changes to diplomacy decision making" include improvements to the faulty war score calculation which overvalues raids and can make the AI think that a faction losing a war in every single way except raids done is somehow winning?
Also, will it involve improvements to the voting system so the player can actually change the outcome more often (as quite often, all lords vote the same way, making the vote impossible to change even with 100 relation and 150 influence spent)?
This bit referenced the adjustment we made in the last patch to have longer diplomatic states (less switching between war / peace). There will likely be further tweaks, but I can't say whether the raid valuation specifically will see a change (undediced).

The voting system may see changes as well, but currently there is greater focus on reviewing the economy of influence.
Will "changes to the clan-kingdom lifecycle" fix the issue of kingdoms with no fiefs left being able to still recruit all the mercenary clans, build armies, and endlessly attack the player, which is not a serious challenge but a big annoyance that adds to the overall grind?
That is the intention, yes. One of the big topics is "how exactly should clans / kingdoms be discontinued?" (but it's not the only one).

since you're offering to answer questions regarding features outlined in the future plans post, could you broadly describe how sally out mechanics will work?

I mean, will it be a "siege battle" with limited enemy numbers where we leave with our units (also will cavalry units stay mounted for sally out?) out of the castle/town gate to destroy siege engines? Or maybe will it be something similar to attacking a bandit hideout at night?

Also, I know this hasn't been mentioned in any plans, but has there been any talks about improving the banner (the actual flag of our clan) creation?
It is not entirely different from the spirit of the prototype. I believe we said the following before: It will use the siege scene, it will have its own mission / logic, it is an ambush (aka surprise the defenders - which essentially just means they don't start at full strength) and its purpose is to target the enemy siege engines.

Regarding the banner editor, the number of available colors was expanded during EA and we may still explore additional sigils. Did you have something specific in mind?

any update on AI lords being able to be put in prison by other Ai lords when they have full dungeons. It's been 6 months and this is still an issue. Can you just make it so AI lords are put into dungeons even if full. When we get lords most times they escape our party because very dungeon is full and we can't donate them
Could you link me the tech support thread for this?
 

Rackie

Veteran
WF&S
Regarding the banner editor, the number of available colors was expanded during EA and we may still explore additional sigils. Did you have something specific in mind?

Uh yes. As we (me and multiple others) have literally said since day 1 of EA launch, we would at least like a few more colours (not just being invert these existing), more than 1 icon per banner and some form of background patterns, maybe with possibility of a third colour. Personal opinion, many of the icons avaliable are very uncreative and ugly, unusable (by themselves). Like basic iconic shapes? Only got few good icons like eagle etc..

Oh, how come, a game created by a single developer focusing on manors rather than banners have created a much more desirable and basically perfect system for it.


Oh! How convenient. Bloc has just created something exactly what would be expected from a game called Bannerlord

I assure you, nobody would mind if we had more complex banner editor/creator...


And to add to this, the existing clan banners should make use of this as well, at least the backgrounds. At the moment (even tho I'm pro uni-coloured banners per faction) they all look very bland and non interesting on the world map.

Hey while talking about this, what about possibility of having banner shown off in at least maybe 1 shield type? Or armour (as in Warband), albeit might not be as fitting for the timeline. Or horse caparisons (with banner design/colours)? :grin:
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Oh gnarly, Duh replied here.
For auto-resolve, we want to explore topics like terrain, combat type and captain perk boni/mali. Ideally, this will provide players with greater agency over the outcome of such battles. We are also looking at a greater effect of the medicine skill effect for the survivability of higher tier troops. (It already has a bias towards them now.)
Ok, very cool. Making Medicine more useful is good as it is a slight noob trap atm.
The focus here is on better availability for a greater variety of wanderer types. AFAIK the spawns are not increased in count but in frequency.
So if I understand right, wanderers will replenish faster? That is an improvement if so.
Currently, they are intentionally low level to allow players to customize / develop them to their needs. Personally, I would love seeing a few higher level/skill companions dotted in between.
Letting players customise them is fantastic in theory but Bannerlord's leveling is so slow and arduous that it can take many hours of tedious grind in bandit hideouts (they die too quickly in actual battles) to get your companions to a useful level.

Perhaps a better solution would be to make wanderers and newly born clan members start with a bit more unallocated attribute points and focus points. That way, you get to build them to your liking, but with less grind (obviously some should remain for a sense of progression).
Yes, that is the intention of these tweaks.
Wunderbar. Thank you!
This bit referenced the adjustment we made in the last patch to have longer diplomatic states (less switching between war / peace). There will likely be further tweaks, but I can't say whether the raid valuation specifically will see a change (undediced).
Ok, thank you for the clarification.
The voting system may see changes as well, but currently there is greater focus on reviewing the economy of influence.
Well that's a start but won't really come close to fixing the problem with voting, as I can have an enormous amount of influence and the AI vassals can have a tiny trickle, and they will still be able to block me in votes by collectively spending the minimum of 20 influence and voting as a hivemind, which they usually do. Eight lords spending just 20 influence is enough to outweigh my 150.

If this is not fixed, by either letting the player spend more influence, or making nobles pick different sides of an issue more often (ideally based on personality traits and a stronger effect of relation) then voting will continue to be nigh-pointless 70% of the time, despite being one of the most central game mechanics.

And another highly central game mechanic, relations with AI lords, does very little. I've heard a guy say he had -100 relation with a lord and convinced them to join him, I've tested having +100 relation with all clans myself and it barely changed the outcome of any votes when I had 0 relation. Strat says that having 100 relation with a clan head makes it only 5% cheaper to bribe them.

I don't know the formula for AI that determines their vote, but surely it should be a matter of just increasing a number to increase the weighting of relation and make it more influential in vote calculations? That would make a big immediate improvement to both of these mechanics. Am I wrong about this and it wouldn't be that easy?
That is the intention, yes. One of the big topics is "how exactly should clans / kingdoms be discontinued?" (but it's not the only one).
Excellent. Thanks again for all the information!
 
Last edited:
It is not entirely different from the spirit of the prototype. I believe we said the following before: It will use the siege scene, it will have its own mission / logic, it is an ambush (aka surprise the defenders - which essentially just means they don't start at full strength) and its purpose is to target the enemy siege engines.

Regarding the banner editor, the number of available colors was expanded during EA and we may still explore additional sigils. Did you have something specific in mind?
Thank you for your response, just because I'm a bit slow, could you clarify if by "the prototype", do you mean the sally out mechanic shown in the 2016 (?) Gamescom presentation?

As for the banner editor, it's exactly as Rackie said, we need more customisation options. Imo, the things we need the most are more colour options (as well as removing the mutual exclusivity of two rows in addition to more colours) and background options such as a cross, bordure, a vertical line through the middle, a horizontal line through the middle, chequered background, a chevron, 2 colours split in the middle vertically, etc. I also wouldn't mind more symbol options either. The banner creator in Manor Lords for example is an excellent point of inspiration for this subject.

Also, somewhat recently I recall you (I may be mistaken) saying something along the lines that TW will be reconsidering the use of the colour palette in the game, could you tell what that is about if you're able to divulge?
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
Oh, how come, a game created by a single developer focusing on manors rather than banners have created a much more desirable and basically perfect system for it.
That just comes down to design decisions. Currently, there is no plan to expand the editor in the way you described.
Hey while talking about this, what about possibility of having banner shown off in at least maybe 1 shield type? Or armour (as in Warband), albeit might not be as fitting for the timeline. Or horse caparisons (with banner design/colours)? :grin:
AFAIK shields already support this, no?

So if I understand right, wanderers will replenish faster?
That & be exchanged faster & generally update towards a reasonable distribution. Or so I understand it)

Letting players customise them is fantastic in theory but Bannerlord's leveling is so slow and arduous that it can take many hours of tedious grind in bandit hideouts (they die too quickly in actual battles) to get your companions to a useful level.
IMO that - first and foremost - means that there should be either a balance or mechanic adjustment to allow players to develop their clan members effectively.

I don't know the formula for AI that determines their vote, but surely it should be a matter of just increasing a number to increase the weighting of relation and make it more influential in vote calculations? That would make a big immediate improvement to both of these mechanics. Am I wrong about this and it wouldn't be that easy?
The way it is currently setup afaik is 2 steps. A) "Rational" evaluation of what I want aka Yes/No B) Relationship modifier on how much I want it (so Yes never becomes No or vice versa due to relations).

Thank you for your response, just because I'm a bit slow, could you clarify if by "the prototype", do you mean the sally out mechanic shown in the 2016 (?) Gamescom presentation?
Yes.

Also, somewhat recently I recall you (I may be mistaken) saying something along the lines that TW will be reconsidering the use of the colour palette in the game, could you tell what that is about if you're able to divulge?
Could you link me to the statement you are referencing or provide insight on the context? If it is about the world map, I think those tweaks were in the release version.
 
That just comes down to design decisions. Currently, there is no plan to expand the editor in the way you described.

AFAIK shields already support this, no?


That & be exchanged faster & generally update towards a reasonable distribution. Or so I understand it)


IMO that - first and foremost - means that there should be either a balance or mechanic adjustment to allow players to develop their clan members effectively.


The way it is currently setup afaik is 2 steps. A) "Rational" evaluation of what I want aka Yes/No B) Relationship modifier on how much I want it (so Yes never becomes No or vice versa due to relations).


Yes.


Could you link me to the statement you are referencing or provide insight on the context? If it is about the world map, I think those tweaks were in the release version.
Yes sure, here you go, your comment is the 4th in the thread.

 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
Ah, right. That is less about reconsidering the color palette and more about applying it to the little banners :grin: AFAIK this is still on the list. The broader review I was referencing also concerned the application of the existing palette to more parts (of armors).
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
IMO that - first and foremost - means that there should be either a balance or mechanic adjustment to allow players to develop their clan members effectively.
True.
The way it is currently setup afaik is 2 steps. A) "Rational" evaluation of what I want aka Yes/No B) Relationship modifier on how much I want it (so Yes never becomes No or vice versa due to relations).
I see. Makes sense why lords all side the same way so often, since they're all working off the same "rational" decision making formula, that then totally ignores the other factors.

And if it's for something like war/peace voting they all stand to gain pretty much the same from war/peace, possibly excepting border lords, so they will all do the same thing every time and only their level of support will vary.

So perhaps the current hivemind lords could be fixed by simply having the "relationship modifier" stage take place within the "rational evaluation" formula, before the yes/no is determined?
 
Ah, right. That is less about reconsidering the color palette and more about applying it to the little banners :grin: AFAIK this is still on the list. The broader review I was referencing also concerned the application of the existing palette to more parts (of armors).
Alright, thank you. I hope that there can also be a discussion on monocolour armour and clothing. It's incredibly immersion breaking seeing that all troops wear and use the faction colour on their armour and shields (especially the civilians wearing same colour outfits in towns & villages) as if they are wearing football jerseys.
 
Last edited:

Dodgy

Sergeant at Arms
So perhaps the current hivemind lords could be fixed by simply having the "relationship modifier" stage take place within the "rational evaluation" formula, before the yes/no is determined?
Or rework the rational evaluation altogether because there shouldn't be always a 100% agreement on whether they want a war to go on or not.
Fiefless lords/lords that have lost their fief should want the war to go on to have some fiefs assigned to them/recaptured, lords with fief that have been raided/suffered losses/are on the border should want peace more than lords that can still field a full army/have a siege in progress/have captured enemy lords.
These are just a few examples of things that I would hope are being considered in their "rational evaluation", but since they all seem to be voting the same way all the time, I am wondering whether that's the case.
It pretty much ruins the whole experience as there's no politics involved. It would be nice to be able to also "barter" with lords for their votes, unless the "rational evaluation" rates such decision to be worth over a certain thrashold.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
Or rework the rational evaluation altogether because there shouldn't be always a 100% agreement on whether they want a war to go on or not.
Fiefless lords/lords that have lost their fief should want the war to go on to have some fiefs assigned to them/recaptured, lords with fief that have been raided/suffered losses/are on the border should want peace more than lords that can still field a full army/have a siege in progress/have captured enemy lords.
These are just a few examples of things that I would hope are being considered in their "rational evaluation", but since they all seem to be voting the same way all the time, I am wondering whether that's the case.
It pretty much ruins the whole experience as there's no politics involved. It would be nice to be able to also "barter" with lords for their votes, unless the "rational evaluation" rates such decision to be worth over a certain thrashold.
It's the same rationalization with army decisions, sure, there's multiple armies now but they all target the same fief/objective. So you see, very often, 2K+ doomstacks targeting a measly 100 unit (half militia) castle, or the rubberbanding that makes AI armies very ineffectual. Especially when you see them try to chase down a single (much quicker) AI party near them; which the player can very easily abuse to completely trivialize the game's later 'complexities'.
There should be some sort of 'communication/distance' delay to the AI/army objectives to simulate 'fog of war' - whether there's some coding tie-in/relation to the encyclopedia on their decisions or the supposed plans to make the encyclopedia less omniscient as mentioned in a thread wayback.
Alright, thank you. I hope that there can also be a discussion on monocolour armour and clothing. It's incredibly immersion breaking seeing that all troops wear and use the faction colour on their armour and shields (especially the civilians wearing same colour outfits in towns & villages) as if they are wearing football jerseys.
I'd prefer they keep the coloured clothing - some troops need more identifiers. This is where there 'game overrides realism' mechanic should matter. It's slightly immersion breaking, but unless they add melee friendly-fire, fine to give them some markers. I mean, the 'dismissive' answer is to turn on that overhead icon over agents but that is substantially more immersion breaking, same with reticles, direction arrows, UI, minimaps, etc...; some people like to have it all off.
 
I'd prefer they keep the coloured clothing - some troops need more identifiers. This is where there 'game overrides realism' mechanic should matter. It's slightly immersion breaking, but unless they add melee friendly-fire, fine to give them some markers. I mean, the 'dismissive' answer is to turn on that overhead icon over agents but that is substantially more immersion breaking, same with reticles, direction arrows, UI, minimaps, etc...; some people like to have it all off.
I would be fine if they only changed the civilians' clothing colours. It looks very silly to see civilians wear all the same colour outfits.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
I would be fine if they only changed the civilians' clothing colours. It looks very silly to see civilians wear all the same colour outfits.
Fair, but TBH, how often does one actually see the 'civilian' wear? With how those elements/features have been developed/underutilized.
 
Fair, but TBH, how often does one actually see the 'civilian' wear? With how those elements/features have been developed/underutilized.
That is fair for vanilla, but if you use Fourberie, you see it very commonly due to having to be in town for many things. Also, they should develop urban gameplay more (which they will at least improve with the implementation of back alley management)
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
For auto-resolve, we want to explore topics like terrain, combat type and captain perk boni/mali. Ideally, this will provide players with greater agency over the outcome of such battles. We are also looking at a greater effect of the medicine skill effect for the survivability of higher tier troops. (It already has a bias towards them now.)

The focus here is on better availability for a greater variety of wanderer types. AFAIK the spawns are not increased in count but in frequency. Currently, they are intentionally low level to allow players to customize / develop them to their needs. Personally, I would love seeing a few higher level/skill companions dotted in between.

Yes, that is the intention of these tweaks.

This bit referenced the adjustment we made in the last patch to have longer diplomatic states (less switching between war / peace). There will likely be further tweaks, but I can't say whether the raid valuation specifically will see a change (undediced).

The voting system may see changes as well, but currently there is greater focus on reviewing the economy of influence.

That is the intention, yes. One of the big topics is "how exactly should clans / kingdoms be discontinued?" (but it's not the only one).


It is not entirely different from the spirit of the prototype. I believe we said the following before: It will use the siege scene, it will have its own mission / logic, it is an ambush (aka surprise the defenders - which essentially just means they don't start at full strength) and its purpose is to target the enemy siege engines.

Regarding the banner editor, the number of available colors was expanded during EA and we may still explore additional sigils. Did you have something specific in mind?


Could you link me the tech support thread for this?
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
It's incredibly immersion breaking seeing that all troops wear and use the faction colour on their armour and shields
That's a game feature many of us want, so, we can disable immersion breaking circular icons floating above soldier's heads. You would need to mod the textures and materials of armours to change that. There isn't some code switch, and if a switch was added it would just revert to bland white linen without proper retexturing.
 
That's a game feature many of us want, so, we can disable immersion breaking circular icons floating above soldier's heads. You would need to mod the textures and materials of armours to change that. There isn't some code switch, and if a switch was added it would just revert to bland white linen without proper retexturing.
I think that there can be simpler solutions to fix this issue such as each kingdom having a larger colour palette that has like 4-5 unique colours different from the other kingdoms. So as an example, if only Sturgia has the colours a,b,c,d & e in their palettes, the troops would look more varied and we would have an easy time understanding that the soldiers belong to the Sturgians in a glance. Civilians' clothing in towns & villages (and peasant troops) should not be limited by colour palettes. Granted, this may make the game worse for people with daltonism or something, but it sounds like a decent solution for most people in my head. Though I don't know jack **** about modding or game development so I assume it's a tad harder to implement it.
 
Last edited:

JunKeteer

Veteran
I think that there can be simpler solutions to fix this issue such as each kingdom having a larger colour palette that has like 4-5 unique colours different from the other kingdoms. So as an example, if only Sturgia has the colours a,b,c,d & e in their palettes, the troops would look more varied and we would have an easy time understanding that the soldiers belong to the Sturgians in a glance. Civilians' clothing in towns & villages (and peasant troops) should not be limited by colour palettes. Granted, this may make the game worse for people with daltonism or something, but it sounds like a decent solution for most people in my head. Though I don't know jack **** about modding or game development so I assume it's a tad harder to implement it.
With civilian clothing, it'll all be the 'same' in the end, just, instead of clothing changing colours TBD on faction, it's just the default/base colour. They won't add multiples of the same item as separate entities for any semblance of further colour customization/choice for a player - as that's X-times more of the same item in game afaik. And adding a colour palette feature in the game for all your armors (hearken to the desire many have to smith armor) would be much loved but far out of their scope post-release for sure.
They did say they are adjusting the troop layers so certain kingdom colours show easier between kingdoms - particularly the fully armored/mailed troops with only a sliver of a tunic showing the kingdom colour (or those Karahkhergits with none). It helps it too when a lot of armies in the end are completely mixed-cultured lords/troops so we don't even have the troop-type itself being the only discerning factor like it was more often in Warband.

Empire colours should be contrasted better, but assume left as is to highlight they are just a 'civil war' faction vs the to other more colourfully diverse kingdoms.
 
Top Bottom