Two crucial reasons Warband has so much more personality compared to Bannerlord

Users who are viewing this thread

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
One thing I can't and won't accept is saying that Warband's character building and skill progression being better than Bannerlord's. Warband's level progression is utter ****, it's unimmersive, uninspiring and straight up bad design. It doesn't even let you roleplay properly due to its horrible design forcing you to battle nonstop.
Nahh, I have to disagree with this. And the reason is simply that you could actually specialise and see some tangible benefits/effects almost from the start of the game.
I personally used atleast 3 different build variants. A Combat Beast, a utility build and a build that allowed you to run all 16 companions.

In Bannerlord I have basically used the same build, with some really minor alterations, for every single campaign I have ever played. I know there are some who seems to swear by the INT build, but to me those skills just come into their right long after they have stopped to matter.

For whatever flaws it might have had. At least Warband provided meaningful choices.
 
Nahh, I have to disagree with this. And the reason is simply that you could actually specialise and see some tangible benefits/effects almost from the start of the game.
This I agree with, in BL, you should start at higher skill levels at the start depending on your choices and you should have higher leeway on your choices at character creation.

The other things you've written sound more like a you issue. Bannerlord gives you more choices and build options through your skills gaining levels based on doing things related to the them and perks giving you options to customise your builds. Warband skills were also incredibly unbalanced. Intelligence build characters were gods that would make your party ridiculously fast and survivable whereas warriors would be able to take 2-3 more arrows/bolts at best.

I think Bannerlord combat builds are stronger and more interesting overall but due to the combat scale being more than 6 times, it feels worse than Warband's. You have to kill at least 65 units in BL to be as effective as killing 10 units in Warband, and the quiver sizes are more or less the same.

You also needed how much points in persuasion for convincing your companions to stay via chat, like 3? I genuinely don't remember but i think it didn't really take a charisma "build" to convince the companions, but I might be wrong.

But these are just my own views, you're welcome to disagree. I just prefer Bannerlord's level up system over Warband's.
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
This I agree with, in BL, you should start at higher skill levels at the start depending on your choices and you should have higher leeway on your choices at character creation.

The other things you've written sound more like a you issue. Bannerlord gives you more choices and build options through your skills gaining levels based on doing things related to the them and perks giving you options to customise your builds. Warband skills were also incredibly unbalanced. Intelligence build characters were gods that would make your party ridiculously fast and survivable whereas warriors would be able to take 2-3 more arrows/bolts at best.

I think Bannerlord combat builds are stronger and more interesting overall but due to the combat scale being more than 6 times, it feels worse than Warband's. You have to kill at least 65 units in BL to be as effective as killing 10 units in Warband, and the quiver sizes are more or less the same.

You also needed how much points in persuasion for convincing your companions to stay via chat, like 3? I genuinely don't remember but i think it didn't really take a charisma "build" to convince the companions, but I might be wrong.

But these are just my own views, you're welcome to disagree. I just prefer Bannerlord's level up system over Warband's.
No, combat builds could be insanely strong in Warband. And as you observe, the number of troops involved were typically a good deal smaller so you and your companions played a much bigger role.

And no, you needed to go all the way for 16 companions to be safe, the conversation check could only save you once.

As you say, the choices are there, but they are just not meaningful (to me). The benefits just comes too late to matter. So...at least for some of us the warband system was simply superior.
 

Dxrkwave

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNW
Honestly, I do like Bannerlord's music (especially that one track when you are in aserai territory on the campaign map) and sound design. I can immerse myself much better in Bannerlord than Warband. I guess it just comes down to personal preference.
 
Honestly, I do like Bannerlord's music (especially that one track when you are in aserai territory on the campaign map) and sound design. I can immerse myself much better in Bannerlord than Warband. I guess it just comes down to personal preference.
Tbh my gripes with Bannerlord's music were probably caused more by me listening to it much more than Vanilla Warband's. I played BL and Warband roughly the same amount but 80% of my Warband playthroughs were of overhaul mods. Warband soundtrack still sounds better to me but maybe it's due to nostalgia.

Bannerlord music also sounds too heavy at times for some reason but I think maybe that's due to the dynamics (change of volume during the piece) making the music feel heavier.

Hopefully the character voiceovers won't be bland. That's also a key reason why Warband had more character. Now only if they brought back the death sounds from Warband...
 

anoddhermit

Sergeant at Arms
Towns and villages could definitely use culture based music(like more ambient versions of the tavern music) and background chatter. Companions (and maybe nobles in your clan too) could also use personality tied to their traits and reactions to the player based on them. Even if it's generic, it still helps make the NPCs feel less lifeless. I don't really need scripted companions, fairly minimal dialogue can still go a long way when it's implemented well and makes sense.

As for character creation, I think each skill point assigned in character creation should give +25 skill rather than +10. Just makes the early game more diverse based on build choices - you can immediately start making use of more perks in ways that change your strategy. Currently I do the same build and the same early game strategy every time.

I also still don't find the culture bonuses very interesting. I usually pick Empire since it gives more overall loyalty and better access to higher level recruits via Combat Tips. Battania is better but it's so strong it feels like cheating to me lol. Aserai is okay for traders I guess, the others are all meh.
 

FireBlazinCandy

Towns and villages could definitely use culture based music(like more ambient versions of the tavern music) and background chatter.

Yeah I really don't understand this part. So much effort put into making the towns and villages, but then they give the player zero reason to ever go into one. The three things that towns and villages need are:

1. Add ambient sounds and chatter.
2. Add random events, like Warband had with ambushing.
3. (Possibly controversial) Remove most or all of the buttons from the campaign map that's allows the player to instantly trade, smith, visit tavern and talk to Lords and Nobles. This would force the player to use the towns and villages, rather then just buying and dumping and buying and dumping. It's a QOL that I think is too much.
 
I agree with 1 & 2, number 3 on the other hand is too extreme. They should give some incentives to go into towns and villages rather than making the player go through a loading screen to do basic stuff. I suggested that the devs add upgrading function for getting higher tier of positive modifiers (or getting rid of negative ones) from weapon, armor & shield/ranged weapon vendors via talking in towns. They should also add prostitutes that temporarily increases your party morale for a cost in towns. They will also be adding back alley management, which will need the players to walk through towns to do battle in a back alley.

I really can't think of anything for castles and villages besides adding new quests that force you to walk in the scenes (like family feud and missing daughter) and maybe improving prison breaks so that we have the option of fighting when we're caught by the guards and after leaving the prison/keep. I would welcome any additional suggestions on incentives to go into towns, castles and villages.

I agree with character creation choices giving more, I would say maybe +20 though. We should also be able to allocate the extra focus and attribute points we get when we choose our age and level up to lvl1 during character creation (and also increase/decrease the attribute points - that actually give some benefits like +2 health for each point in endurance). Character creation itself can use so much work honestly. If they want to call this game sandbox, we should be able to choose our social status in character creation (normal start, trader, criminal, mercenary, lord, ruler) our marital status (random spouse from same culture), number of kids (randomly generated) and whether we own a fief (semi randomly generated, start with a random castle if starting as a lord, get a random town if you're the ruler).
 
Last edited:

FireBlazinCandy

Yeah I feel like a lot of people wouldn't be mad on 3. The issue with adding more quests that require the player go into the town is that for me, and from what I see with other people's gameplay, is that quests aren't a thing from mid game onwards. Mid to late game is just seige and seige defence (but that's another issue) and as soon as I have a couple companions I just have them do the quests to be more efficient.

Either way, I don't think there are going to be any more changes to the game so there's not much point complaining unfortunately. 1.9 is the final version and they stated that future patches etc won't be very big from now on.
 
I thought that "reduced the patch sizes of future patches" was more a change in how patches will install themselves rather than a statement of intention. I understood it more as new patches will be idk 2GBs rather than 30GBs because "we changed how patches work, they will no longer be replacing half the files in the game for no reason" kind of thing. They will be adding 2 new town scenes, quite a few castle scenes and 70+ battlefield maps along with voiceovers, new sally out mechanics, claimant quests and criminal enterprises, so I doubt that they meant that they won't be adding much anymore.
 
Last edited:

FireBlazinCandy

I thought that "reduced the patch sizes of future patches" was more a change in how patches will install themselves rather than a statement of intention. I understood it more as new patches will be idk 2GBs rather than 30GBs because "we changed how patches work, they will no longer be replacing half the files in the game for no reason" kind of thing. They will be adding 2 new town scenes, quite a few castle scenes and 70+ battlefield maps along with voiceovers, new sally out mechanics, claimant quests and criminal enterprises, so I doubt that they meant that they won't be adding much anymore.

Maybe you're right. I took it as "we're basically wrapping up here", which you know, would make sense that they finish making the game before they release it at full price. Whatever patches they make I hope they do it quickly so I can download mods like bannerkings that add the rest of the content.
 
I understand why you would think that, it's also logical, but to me it's just not something I would expect them to write in patch notes but rather the future plans post, but you never know 🤷‍♂️.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
1 - subjectively.
2 - It literally is just that.
I'll not even bother to answer this properly, but going "no you" or "I'm right because I'm right!" doesn't make your statement or thinking correct. Quality is objective, what isn't are tastes/preferences, if you were better educated you would know that.
There's a reason we mock flat-earthers and other conspiracy theorists. I did, however, pull patience out my arse to try and explain, you wanting to understand / learn or opting towards illogical denial isn't my problem. But if you need that to feel better, than here: "no yes you're right"
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
You know what I mean? Warband's music feel less burdening on the soul. Not saying Bannerlord's music is bad in any way. I really love the Khuzait theme for example. It's just that listening to these soundtracks for a long period of time, while something mundane like traveling, is a bit tiring.
Yeah, Bannerlord has some great music in its own right.

The key issue I've identified is that despite Bannerlord having multiple good tracks in the game files, in practice you hear the same 5 tracks repeated over and over until you get sick of them:

>The same 3 songs when travelling the world map
>1 song for 75% of sieges (Khuzait and Aserai share a unique "eastern" siege track but every other culture has the same siege song)
>1 song for all bandit hideouts, looter fights, and tournament fights

There are cool unique tracks for each culture, but the only time I've heard them play is when joining an army, or when wandering around in a town for long enough. And since you don't spend much time doing either of those, you don't get to hear the cool unique songs.

In Warband every culture had a song that would play while travelling in their region, plus a song that would play at night, and 3 more generic tracks to mix things up when travelling.

Once again, it's a case of Bannerlord having the potential to be just as good as Warband if just some small tweaks are made.
Eh I disagree about the music. I actually like Bannerlord's music quite a bit, initially what kept me playing as much as I did.

That said Warband has some excellent tracks, particularly the Main Theme and Fight While Mounted. But it also has some not so great ones. I honestly can't stand Swadian Hall, far too lullaby sounding for a game centered on warfare. Literally thought it was joke first time I heard it.
Absolutely fair enough to not like it, but I will point out that harp music is very fitting for a medieval lord's hall.
What separates Warband and Bannerlord, is that Warband at least tried to be an RPG. Bannerlord just has a bunch of super grindy skill trees and that's about it. Basically Warband set the bar pretty low, and Bannerlord doesn't even try to raise it. You've got reactionless Companions who's only purpose is to be Captains; there's absolutely no conflict of interests between characters. Like Honest and Dishonest characters should not like each other.

Just adding some basic checks (like Cautious Lords are less likely to engage you/surrender more often) would breath so much life into this game.
This. I would really love for personality traits to have an effect on something other than just greeting dialogue.

Greedy - Companions cost more to hire. Nobles will not spend influence to vote for others for fiefs, and will vote for policies that make them money and against policies that take their money. Notables give lower quest rewards.
Generous - Companions cost less to hire. Nobles are more likely to vote for candidates with no fiefs, and will vote for policies that benefit the realm or the less fortunate. Notables give higher quest rewards.

Sadistic - Companions gain relation with you when you pillage and raid. Nobles are more likely to pillage, raid, and execute.
Merciful - Companions lose relation with you when you pillage and raid. Nobles will never pillage or raid, and will not execute anyone except those with Sadistic traits.

Cautious - Companions are more likely to retreat due to low morale, and do not lose relation when you abandon allies or retreat; Nobles will be more likely to surrender or negotiate when slightly outnumbered.
Brave - Companions will never retreat, and lose 10 relation with you for each retreat or abandonment of allies; Nobles will never surrender (like it is now).
Neither - Companions will lose 1 relation with you for each retreat or abandonment of allies. Nobles will only surrender when heavily outnumbered.

Impulsive - Nobles will drastically underestimate the enemy party size, sometimes taking on very disadvantageous battles.
Calculating - Nobles will accurately assess the enemy party size.
Neither - Nobles will slightly underestimate the enemy party size (like it is now IIRC).

And also make it so that if your relation drops below -50 with a companion, they will leave your party/clan. Because right now, even for companions whose personality traits make them complain about robbing a village, they won't actually leave you even if you keep doing it.

As it stands right now, the trait system for AI is almost useless. It doesn't do much for the player either.
 
Last edited:

Antaeus

Squire
I'll not even bother to answer this properly, but going "no you" or "I'm right because I'm right!" doesn't make your statement or thinking correct. Quality is objective, what isn't are tastes/preferences, if you were better educated you would know that.
There's a reason we mock flat-earthers and other conspiracy theorists. I did, however, pull patience out my arse to try and explain, you wanting to understand / learn or opting towards illogical denial isn't my problem. But if you need that to feel better, than here: "no yes you're right"
The fact that I disagree with the stated perspective evidences that it is not absolute, or universally held, and thus is subjective.

I for one, prefer Bannerlord because it is both more sophisticated, and visually more appealing. From my perspective. Which is subjective. I'm not saying others are wrong if their subjective opinion is different to mine, unless they claim to speak for me by suggesting that there is universal or absolute agreement.

And differences on opinion about a subjective thing like the merits of a game is in no way comparable to something that is scientifically evidencable such as the spherical nature of our planet. To do so is reducing the argument to the absurd.

As for the whole "if you were better educated you would know that" thing. There's also a fallacy that fits this line of debate too. Questioning the person's capability rather than their argument...

I do feel better however, because of your parting shot - "no yes you're right"
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
The fact that I disagree with the stated perspective evidences that it is not absolute, or universally held, and thus is subjective.

I for one, prefer Bannerlord because it is both more sophisticated, and visually more appealing. From my perspective. Which is subjective. I'm not saying others are wrong if their subjective opinion is different to mine, unless they claim to speak for me by suggesting that there is universal or absolute agreement.

And differences on opinion about a subjective thing like the merits of a game is in no way comparable to something that is scientifically evidencable such as the spherical nature of our planet. To do so is reducing the argument to the absurd.

As for the whole "if you were better educated you would know that" thing. There's also a fallacy that fits this line of debate too. Questioning the person's capability rather than their argument...

I do feel better however, because of your parting shot - "no yes you're right"

101 first read for any and all game design students:

https://hackr.io/blog/best-game-design-books - so so list but at least it'll introduce you

I doubt you'll do your research and will stick to denial, but there it is and I won't chew it for you

about art:
Music's my favorite example...
Dream Theater's objectively higher quality music with higher quality musicians - subjectively I hate their stuff
on the other hand, Sex Pistols' objectively crap music with crap musicians - subjectively I love it.

end of discussion, have a good one
 
Last edited:

Antaeus

Squire

101 first read for any and all game design students:

https://hackr.io/blog/best-game-design-books - so so list but at least it'll introduce you

I doubt you'll do your research and will stick to denial, but there it is and I won't chew it for you

about art:
Music's my favorite example...
Dream Theater's objectively higher quality music with higher quality musicians - subjectively I hate their stuff
on the other hand, Sex Pistols' objectively crap music with crap musicians - subjectively I love it.

end of discussion, have a good one

I think you're still mistaking me. I said in my last post that I consider Bannerlord both more sophisticated, and better looking. I find Warband boring, uninteresting, from a programming perspective, antiquated. From a story perspective, childish. Even by your "art is not subjective" perspective, which I disagree with, it is a worse game.

Also, you didn't respond to me calling you out for Ad Hominem. You might have taken the high ground and apologised for that, but you're too keen to be right. Or the assumptions in the first place. Rather than trying to both educate and insult me. I wonder how well that works for you in your daily life.
 

Grank

Master Knight
WBNWVC
>The same 3 songs when travelling the world map
>1 song for 75% of sieges (Khuzait and Aserai share a unique "eastern" siege track but every other culture has the same siege song)
>1 song for all bandit hideouts, looter fights, and tournament fights
Yeah the repetition is really doing more damage than the quality of the soundtrack itself.
"The first thing that must be established is that 'objective' doesn't necessarily mean factual. It simply means your reference used for assessing a film was solely based on what is on the text of the film."

The video doesn't claim that there's no such thing as subjective quality. In fact, it's the opposite. The video is simply reminding people that there are objective elements in art, along with the subjective elements. It doesn't deny the existence of the subjective elements or undermine their value. In fact, the video even said it's the subjective qualities that make art what it is.

It's good to see that you've started citing references after I ripped your ass in that other thread, but your sources need to actually prove your points instead of undermining it. You can't just reference a single part of it (in this case, the title of the video) and ignore the rest. You're saying, "Look there's a video titled 'art is not subjective' so my argument is correct," while the video's intent is not that. Pushing out reference alone is not enough to increase your credibility. You need to cite the actual content. Another example, which paragraph in Homo Ludens supported your argument that art is objective? You cited none. You just claimed that it supported your idea and boasted about other books. Besides, youtube is not even a credible source for citation.

To return your words, you'd have known this if you were better educated.
 
Top Bottom