Statement regarding Singleplayer IV

Users who are viewing this thread

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.
I would be fine with empire civilians for example walking around town with different coloured version of the same tunic. Since different cultures already have different civilian outfits anyways, I doubt that all civilians will look exactly the same, just in gray.

I don't understand why they would need to add multiples of the same entity in the game, I thought that the game applied the faction colour to the same tunic, not equip people with a separate yellow tunic item for people in a yellow faction.

Agreed with the empire colours, they should be more disparate between each imperial faction.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
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.
Not with the current system. Each factional armour has a texture which maps where the factional colours go in its UV map. The system (and existing textures) only use the green and red channels. So, can only cope with two colours using the current system and textures.
 
Not with the current system. Each factional armour has a texture which maps where the factional colours go in its UV map. The system (and existing textures) only use the green and red channels. So, can only cope with two colours using the current system and textures.
Ah, alright.
 
Last edited:

Mad Vader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
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.

....so they will all do the same thing every time and only their level of support will vary.
This is how Bannerlord was designed as well!
Not with the current system. Each factional armour has a texture which maps where the factional colours go in its UV map. The system (and existing textures) only use the green and red channels. So, can only cope with two colours using the current system and textures.
But... why? Why have such a system in the first place? And why not expand it to cover all colors?
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
But... why? Why have such a system in the first place? And why not expand it to cover all colors?
You can set up whatever colours you want. However, you can only apply two of them to the colour variable parts of factional armours (ignoring the murky 50:50 option to average those two factional colours). I guess you could also use the blue channel to map a third colour, but that would require a shader rewrite and replacement of all of the existing factional armour colour map textures. A waste of time IMO. Ensuring a 2 colour tartan looks good for all of the potential factional variations that might acquire it is a pain. I’d rather add third or fourth neutral colours such as black or white to the armours diffuse texture and blank those sections of the colour maps. Anyway, tartans only suit certain factions. Most colour variable parts of decent armour (mail, lamellar etc.) are just sleeves and skirt hems, making simple colour schemes the best friend-or-foe recognition system if you hate unrealistic floating circular icons above soldiers’ heads.
IMO fancy colour schemes only work well with one set of colours, so, they should be set up as non-variable diffuse textures where required.
 
Last edited:

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
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?
The problem with relying on relations to solve the issue of lacking variety across clans is a potentially very high difference in an individual clan's votes depending on the sponsor. So worst case you have the prior war/peace flip-flopping for all decisions.

I think there would at least also need to be some tweaks to "rational" interest - those don't necessarily have to be hyper-rational either, but could lay more into the static political preferences or other character traits that characters hold. That would not suffer the variability of relations / proposal.

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 would expect more of this as a result of using the minor flags / as of yet unused armor bits.

Poked the relevant folks on this. If you provide a more in-depth description on the issue (f.e. do you observe an issue early / mid / late game or always) or a save game where this issue occurs that can generally help speed up the processing.
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
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.
that's uniform, mate.

the same way you say was "immersion breaking" the roman wearing all red tunics, senators wearing white togas. that's completely normal the colors

i understand some ppl doesn't like, but i find reasonable by the period they trying to mimick
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
I think there would at least also need to be some tweaks to "rational" interest - those don't necessarily have to be hyper-rational either, but could lay more into the static political preferences or other character traits that characters hold. That would not suffer the variability of relations / proposal.
I would love to see Traits play a bigger role in lord voting and I think others would too. The hidden political preferences mechanic being more relevant would be great also.
The problem with relying on relations to solve the issue of lacking variety across clans is a potentially very high difference in an individual clan's votes depending on the sponsor. So worst case you have the prior war/peace flip-flopping for all decisions.
What about something like this for policy and war votes?
  • If the noble's political stance or Trait favours the vote, +1 support.
  • If the noble political stance or Trait opposes the vote, -1 support.
  • If the noble has 40+ relations with the person calling the vote, +1 support.
  • If the noble has 70+ relations with the person calling the vote, +2 support.
  • If the noble has -40 or less relations with the person calling the vote, -1 support.
  • If the noble has -70 or less relations with the person calling the vote, -2 support.
  • In a war/peace vote, +1 or -1 support based on whether the war score calculation thinks peace or war is a good idea.
Add up the "support" to get how much Influence they spend for or against the vote. Eg: +3 support results in 150 influence spent in favour.

I'm not sure if the AI tends to get above or below 70 relations with many clans, but the player will, and when they do, they get a suitable reward for the effort they put in.
 
that's uniform, mate.

the same way you say was "immersion breaking" the roman wearing all red tunics, senators wearing white togas. that's completely normal the colors

i understand some ppl doesn't like, but i find reasonable by the period they trying to mimick
I highly doubt that civilians were wearing the same colour outfits as their flag in the streets though. Also, the more immersion breaking parts of monocolourism is imo lower tier troops that wear clothing and such.
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
I highly doubt that civilians were wearing the same colour outfits as their flag in the streets though. Also, the more immersion breaking parts of monocolourism is imo lower tier troops that wear clothing and such.
not civilians, i was talking more about the legions (of rome), everything was standard
 
not civilians, i was talking more about the legions (of rome), everything was standard
Well yeah I agree with you on higher tier soldiers looking more uniform. It's not really an issue with higher tier soldiers anyways, since you can barely see any colour with heavily armoured units other than their shield if they have one. It looks really silly when you see all the peasants, burghers and tier 1-2 units wearing the same colour as the flag.

@NPC99 would it be possible to implement my suggestion if there were for example 3 or more possible (faction unique) colour and shade options in a pool for each colour channels? So a Khuzait unit would for example have 3x3=9 colour combinations for their armour and apparel.
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
I would love to see Traits play a bigger role in lord voting and I think others would too. The hidden political preferences mechanic being more relevant would be great also.

What about something like this for policy and war votes?
  • If the noble's political stance or Trait favours the vote, +1 support.
  • If the noble political stance or Trait opposes the vote, -1 support.
  • If the noble has 40+ relations with the person calling the vote, +1 support.
  • If the noble has 70+ relations with the person calling the vote, +2 support.
  • If the noble has -40 or less relations with the person calling the vote, -1 support.
  • If the noble has -70 or less relations with the person calling the vote, -2 support.
  • In a war/peace vote, +1 or -1 support based on whether the war score calculation thinks peace or war is a good idea.
Add up the "support" to get how much Influence they spend for or against the vote. Eg: +3 support results in 150 influence spent in favour.

I'm not sure if the AI tends to get above or below 70 relations with many clans, but the player will, and when they do, they get a suitable reward for the effort they put in.
IMO that proposal would still place too much weight on relations & thus have significant vote variations of the same clan on the same vote - just with a different sponsor. If we don't want flip-flopping, I think the current approach make sense in that relations don't swing yes / no, but affect how much support a sponsor receives towards the outcome that the voting clan is interested in itself. I personally don't think relations are required or represent the best avenue to resolve the voting uniformity.
 
IMO that proposal would still place too much weight on relations & thus have significant vote variations of the same clan on the same vote - just with a different sponsor. If we don't want flip-flopping, I think the current approach make sense in that relations don't swing yes / no, but affect how much support a sponsor receives towards the outcome that the voting clan is interested in itself. I personally don't think relations are required or represent the best avenue to resolve the voting uniformity.
I think that relation and traits working in conjunction for voting is reasonable. For example, a Lord that holds grudges/is petty (idk which trait this would be, impulsive/negative calculating?) and has a very negative relationship should vote against a proposal if the person/clan has negative relations, even if it would be against their material interest. This way, the amount of flip flopping on votes can be decreased (since there are 2 conditions for lords voting against their interest) while also making traits and relations matter. A very petty person is not necessarily always rational after all. We could use other traits for determining votes such as Valor trait and relationship with the person/clan who initiated the vote for war declarations, Generosity trait and relationship for forgiveness of the debt, etc.
 
Last edited:

danEN

On probation
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
That just comes down to design decisions. Currently, there is no plan to expand the editor in the way you described.
hah-classic.gif
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
For example, a Lord that holds grudges/is petty (idk which trait this would be, impulsive/negative calculating?) and has a very negative relationship should vote against a proposal if the person/clan has negative relations, even if it would be against their material interest
I wouldn't be personally against this, though it should be understandable to players. We have enough hidden mechanics as is :razz:
 
I wouldn't be personally against this, though it should be understandable to players. We have enough hidden mechanics as is :razz:
Yeah, I completely agree ( though you can always take the easy way out and write it as a tip in the esc menu screen like with arena masters and respeccing :razz:).
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
@NPC99 would it be possible to implement my suggestion if there were for example 3 or more possible (faction unique) colour and shade options in a pool for each colour channels? So a Khuzait unit would for example have 3x3=9 colour combinations for their armour and apparel.
I don't think it makes much sense to change the factional colour system to improve diversity in the colours of civilian clothes. If Taleworlds ever chose to do it, I suspect it would be easier for them to just randomise the two colours applied to each agent's civilian clothing from a pool of suitable colours. That would purely be coding with no asset changes. However, they're more likely to let someone mod it.
However, as low tier troops also wear civilian clothes this would compromise colour coding of factions in battle, unless it was only applied in non-battle scenes or only to civilian agents wearing civilian clothes.
 
Last edited:

JunKeteer

Veteran
IMO that proposal would still place too much weight on relations & thus have significant vote variations of the same clan on the same vote - just with a different sponsor. If we don't want flip-flopping, I think the current approach make sense in that relations don't swing yes / no, but affect how much support a sponsor receives towards the outcome that the voting clan is interested in itself. I personally don't think relations are required or represent the best avenue to resolve the voting uniformity.
So if the relations only affects the quality of the supported vote (predominately always one-sided - either all for or against the king); how exactly are the votes calculated with the %? Is it just a straight #influence vote majority?
There are so many votes that you can't really counter or swing or manipulate, despite getting all the clans to 100 relations or by even donating influence points to them.
We have no way either to make X clan dislike Y clan either (via quests or other means) to 'play' that politics aspect to get a clan to stop sponsoring or kick them out. The only way that I've seen, is by the player abusing the fact they can get 3K+influence, and bankrupt the other clans by repeating the same vote over and over until they literally can't sponsor anymore which isn't really fun.
But if this is acceptable, why not add slider then for how much influence the player can add instead of the fixed numbers? Yes, there's balancing to the that (as with any changes) but those can be tweaked quite easily vs the more 'complicated' route re the flip-flopping outcome.
Have the relation modifiers also scale accordingly, it's too easy as it is to have all clans 100 relations (+20 to vote in favor, and only -2 or something against), particularly as a lot of the voting is on the same fief/castle being literally flip-flopped between kingdoms every other day.
 
I don't think it makes much sense to change the factional colour system to improve diversity in the colours of civilian clothes. If Taleworlds ever chose to do it, I suspect it would be easier for them to just randomise the two colours applied to each agent's civilian clothing from a pool of suitable colours. That would purely be coding with no asset changes. However, they're more likely to let someone mod it.
However, as low tier troops also wear civilian clothes this would compromise colour coding of factions in battle, unless it was only applied in non-battle scenes or only to civilian agents wearing civilian clothes.
Oh, that's a shame to hear.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
IMO that proposal would still place too much weight on relations & thus have significant vote variations of the same clan on the same vote - just with a different sponsor. If we don't want flip-flopping, I think the current approach make sense in that relations don't swing yes / no, but affect how much support a sponsor receives towards the outcome that the voting clan is interested in itself. I personally don't think relations are required or represent the best avenue to resolve the voting uniformity.
Whatever you guys choose to do, my feedback is that you shouldn't forget how infuriating it is to be railroaded into complying with dumb AI decisions or being unable to get your votes passed, despite having built up your relations with everyone, and spent 150 influence. Any system created needs to keep that in mind.

I see where you're coming from though on relation with vote caller potentially creating too much unwanted variance.

Adding traits/preferences to create more political division in votes would be an enormous improvement though because at least we could be the "balance of power" deciding vote more often.

Maybe letting us also spend more Influence on a vote, and making the AI disinclined to do so except in exceptional circumstances (a perfect combination of extreme relations and matching traits) could be a good solution to letting the player have more interactivity with votes.

My other feedback is that there doesn't feel like much reason to build relation with lords and ladies at all. I can do quests for a lord for hours, marry my daughter to them, save them hundreds of times in battle, reach 100 relation... and the end result is 5% cheaper bribery, marginally easier persuasion, and somewhat cheaper marriage. That's it, apparently. So I was thinking that making relation more relevant in votes would at least make that mechanic more useful.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom