Statement regarding Singleplayer IV

Users who are viewing this thread

These and other clan members should not be a problem to talk to with the adjustments described in the OP.
Looking forward to see how that turns out.

For those wondering about our previous conversation about messengers follow this quote to see.
I don't think that there will be a telepathy type option. Yes it increases QoL but it also detracts from the players own interactions with the world.

Nonetheless, some improvements may be made. For instance, we recently discussed an option to barter for your captive clan members via a settlement's prisoner broker. Maybe a similar solution (with representatives in reliable locations) could be found for mercenaries. I will add the topic to the suggestion list.
I agree that some things in the game require too much micro management, but I think that the landline option is an acceptable compromise. And do keep in mind that that's just my take. Who knows, maybe it will go a different avenue entirely.
Duh, you guys still thinking of the landline solution or has this evolved?
 
Nothing solid yet. I still consider it the most viable option.
All good, given the circumstances I agree its the most viable option left. Just hope it doesn't fall too deep in the backlog.
Also could add some potential weight / meaning to your "court", though, by themselves that wouldn't really do it justice.
I think my lack of context is making this hard to understand, could you explain?
 
A universal messenger system is not desired for the base game. Better accessability to mercenary arrangements may still be introduced, but they rank lower on the backlog.
I mean if a universal messenger system is not desired then how come TW explaining voting kingdom related subjects via Whatsapp messenger?
I do not get this? Kingdom related subjects are perfect reason for feasts after the wars. We were able to send out companions in Warband for this kind of thing but that is still not in the game.
 
The armor calculation is separate and the changes to singleplayer described in the OP will not affect multiplayer.
Any chance that you can make the values easily editable in a config file like it was for warband? I think that would let people do their own custom configurations and there'd be a lot less back and forth about what armour values are the best since everyone could tune it to their own wish.
 
Are there any plans on diversifying banner creation for the player's clan?

Also thank you for the update. Very much looking forward to future patches.
 
I noticed a problem about robbing a caravan. There is a trade caravan of 40 people. When I have 3,000 soldiers to rob it, the other party will surrender directly, but robbing when I have 300 people can't trigger this scene. I think the trigger conditions of this task are too difficult, almost equivalent to not having this task. This makes the task players made by the working group not feel it, which leads to a lot of bad feedback from players. And the bonus of personal role skills is too low, even doubling the effect of all skills is not unreasonable to me. I hope the working group can solve these problems reasonably.
 
I think my lack of context is making this hard to understand, could you explain?
Having a single character with a single function may feel worse than not having one. (So could be better to have the governor do it with a new dialogue option.) In any case, it wouldn't quite provide a "court" feeling by itself - just count towards it.

I mean if a universal messenger system is not desired then how come TW explaining voting kingdom related subjects via Whatsapp messenger?
I do not get this? Kingdom related subjects are perfect reason for feasts after the wars. We were able to send out companions in Warband for this kind of thing but that is still not in the game.
I'm having trouble with understanding all of this. But I believe the core of the matter is universal VS. limited - so the kingdom decisions provide a limited means of abstracted interaction. A universal messenger would be, well, universal and less abstract lest a new system (not just "phone call") would be added.

Any chance that you can make the values easily editable in a config file like it was for warband?
Not with a config, no. However, there is an abstract model class called StrikeMagnitudeCalculationModel in GameModel.cs, which has the method public abstract float ComputeRawDamage .This can be overriden to introduce your own damage calculation (and as such armor effectiveness).

Are there any plans on diversifying banner creation for the player's clan?
Nothing specific for me to share.

There is a trade caravan of 40 people. When I have 3,000 soldiers to rob it, the other party will surrender directly, but robbing when I have 300 people can't trigger this scene.
It's intended that parties only surrender under extraordinary circumstances (too easy to exploit otherwise). Maybe they don't trust you to keep them alive so they rather die fighting? Of course, this can be balanced further, but it's very low prio.
 
  • Item variety
    • What's a warrior without their weapon? In an effort to increase the general variety of equipment, we have been working on a number of new crafting pieces as well as making some of the existing pieces available across additional weapon types.
Sorry for posting again. I know you can't answer every comments, but I try it again.
Is this ,,item variety'' contains armors too?
With every patch we got new pieces and I am very happy to see them in the game. Nice work, but can we expect in the future more unique hand and foot armors too for the factions. Aserai has only low tier from both. Also Khuzait Khan's guards wear Battanian scale gauntlet. It is a bit weird for me.
Also when the game released in EA I got an answer from devs. there is a plan for unique armors for minor faction, do you know anything about it? That could be awesome.
Is there any chance for camel armor later in the game? Ghulams a bit weak with unarmored camels but their lower tier unit uses heavy armored horses.
Maybe you cant say anything exactly, but a small crumb. I could really appreciate it.
 
I'm having trouble with understanding all of this.
YUSlo.png

Regardless, thanks for the communication. Last couple of weeks, I am very active on the forum and whenever I come here, I see you online and answering lots of question. Thank you.
 
Sorry for posting again. I know you can't answer every comments, but I try it again.
Is this ,,item variety'' contains armors too?
This particular entry in the post does not concern armors, no. Having said that, it doesn't mean that we won't have any further armors created. It's just a lesser priority. I cannot currently comment on the next sets that may or may not come.
 
@Duh_TaleWorlds , anything about spear rework or unit collision fix?
Not sure what you mean with the former. As for the latter, I guess this answers the question?
The issue comes from the collision resolving code - if we "smoothen" it too much then that allows agents to pass through walls and other objects. That's why we made the resolving code "harder" (Gamescom 2016 video gameplay vs now). Think of it as a tradeoff between the smoothness of collision resolution and the strictness of clipping into something. It's possible to resolve this tradeoff but at the cost of performance in sieges. We have made some improvements on the AI agent movement though which should aid with the "jittering" issue and you can expect those with a future patch. Overall, I can say that we're still working on this issue both from the physics and the AI perspectives.
 
Not sure what you mean with the former. As for the latter, I guess this answers the question?

We really need a re-work of spears in general. Spears were one of the most versatile weapons of their time. Its a shame we can only thrust up and down when they have also been used to swing and throw. Is it possible a change can be put in motion?
 
We really need a re-work of spears in general. Spears were one of the most versatile weapons of their time. Its a shame we can only thrust up and down when they have also been used to swing and throw. Is it possible a change can be put in motion?
I'm not as involved with the combat system details, but I wouldn't expect fundamental changes at this point. (To me, new attack vectors seem like a rather significant adjustment.)
 
Having a single character with a single function may feel worse than not having one. (So could be better to have the governor do it with a new dialogue option.) In any case, it wouldn't quite provide a "court" feeling by itself - just count towards it.
Gotcha thanks for explaining. I agree it wouldn't provide a court feeling by itself, doing it through the governor is probably the easiest way to get it approved and implemented. (y)
 
If it gives you peace of mind, you can consider anything not mentioned in the future plans as "won't be added". More realistically, though, we will continue to review suggestions and take them into account when the opportunity presents itself (more time/resources available than expected).

Edith: I also think some of these are out of date. First item in first list...
View attachment 162389

There is always a chance, I guess. However, currently we are not actively looking into it. So I wouldn't expect anything like this pre-launch.
Thank you for answer, quick final question will you be looking at troop assignments the current system is a bit restrictive. You could allow the player to pick individual soldiers to go in a new formation or allowing the player to pick the tier of troop would help, latter is not perfect but would simplify it a lot. Currenly trying to seperate elite troops and non elite is possible but could be a bit smoother.
 
Back
Top Bottom