drivegol
Regular
What is a feast then in Warband, per your description. I'm really curious to hear what was so great about feasts that made so many people remember them this fondly.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
What is going on in TaleWorlds?
- Thread starter Tiburon
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Regular
Yeah, so much talk about feasts in every other thread. I always found them useless
I never said feasts were great. And that's my point. What does BL have that's just not some equivalent version as what feasts were for WB?
drivegol
Regular
Policy voting.
Yes, and it's just as **** as feasts were for WB; probably worse because the "gaming" interaction is clicking 2 buttons and then suddenly you're best friends with half+ of the whole entire clan and all their offspring.
drivegol
Regular
Can't really agree, but alright.
I totally agree with this as a constructive criticism. A lot of stuff feel like a placeholder, thou in my 15+ years of gaming I can admit i have a little bit overinflated expectations, even thou to this day I'm facing failures myself from time to time, some big some small. I feel like they made a great framework but decided the hassle to implement stuff is too much and its not worth the time/energy/resources. Only part i can't agree with is the bad design, they got the core game loop right, its the filler part they are lacking in.
Like a fellow gamer in the previous post said - They implemented gangs and gang territories as a what - 100 g passive income stream ? I'm yet to understand how to properly use this without getting frustrated at how shallow it feels - prototype future feel.
Best we can do is offer good feedback and try to hold them to a reachable standard while also understanding game development is not easy. Just because some modders can do stuff better then them means nothing, we are still playing taleworlds game
Last edited:
D0c1
Knight at Arms
what is this supposed to mean?
you did use this feature to mend relations with a lord that hates your gut to the point of not attending your feasts if you didn't have villages to spare.
lords with bad personalities only get villages. this is how you manage them.
you feast all the time to make relations well into the positive side and invite lords slowly instead of inviting a ton of lords at the same time.
by voting for the fief to go to them and gaining tons of relations then getting elected as king?
the point was warband felt alive. lords did other things like attending to their lands, courting ladies and feasting. bannerlord is 24/7 wars and everything is made to facilitate them including simplifying what is considered a fief, the lords, gaining relations, the diplomacy and an economy based on battle loot.
they made a great one thousand unit in a battle game and they want every player to experience it all the time.
drivegol
Regular
Feasting gives you +1 relation with a Lord if they show up to your feast, and you talk to them, once per day. For the player, this means buying a ton of food, giving it to your spouse, starting the feast, staring at your screen as you wait a full minute for Lords to arrive to your fief, entering your hall, pressing the talk button and exiting the dialogue screen for every Lord in your hall, waiting another 20 seconds to pass the day, and repeating that a few times. Such joy.
Giving away one fief will give you +10 relations with a vassal, but can cost you multiple relation points (I forgot the exact amount) with other vassals depending on their personality, how many fiefs they have, and/or if they like the vassal you gave the fief to regardless of personality. Giving a village to a vassal to mend relations isn't super practical if you lose more points in total with other vassals.
This is managable on a small scale with a few vassals, but in my experience this stops being entertaining the minute you work with more than 10 vassals unless they're specifically all good natured vassals that you already have maxed relations with.
And yes, that is exactly my point, it isn't feasible on a large scale, whereas it is in Bannerlord. It is stupid for there to be 120 vassals a player can recruit but for it to become a hassle just to maintain the 20 that every kingdom starts with, even if you have more than enough fiefs to accomodate for them.
By donating influence to them, or trading them gifts, or doing quests for them. Quests in particular weren't hard in Warband but they are simply more effective in Bannerlord.
Lords didn't actively court ladies. The only time this ever showed up is if you happened to court a lady another lord was already courting, and that's once per playthrough. Even in the case that they did, it only served as a random quest for the player because that Lord was literally never going to marry anyone.
As opposed to Bannerlord, where Lords actually get married and have children that can grow up to become Lords themselves who get married and have children. You know, real courting?
And Lords still attend their lands in Bannerlord the same way they did in Warband, which is sometimes patrolling them or residing at them while gathering troops if they're not going to war and that's it.
I don't know what it is about Lords attending a feast that makes the world feel alive to you but I certainly feel much more activity in Bannerlord with seeing lords actively engage in political matters and seeing real consequences of crime and instability in towns, activities that you the player can participate in as well, as opposed to them simply standing still in a feasting hall doing absolutely nothing they don't already do in any other town/castle or on the field.
Last edited:
D0c1
Knight at Arms
yes
it is because you're combining it with feasting and only actively using it for lords that hate your gut and refuse attending your feasts.
you can also seek lords of the same family. you gain relations with all of them for giving one of them a fief.
or taking it slow and raising your relations well into the positive with each lord you take in.
and giving those with bad personalities villages so their defection doesn't affect you.
my point was it is too easy in bannerlord. there is practically no vassals management aspect in bannerlord.
yes they did.
they ignored campaigns to court ladies. you can ask them while they're going and they'll tell you this.
courting is the thing before marriage.
bannerlord still has no courting.
the dynasty feature is amazing and i'm forever thankful to taleworlds for adding it but i wish it wasn't at the cost of other features.
and they're always at war. and they don't feast or court ladies. idk if they even actually attend to their land.
and how do i see this? the vote screen? i've never seen the consequences of crimes in bannerlord.
drivegol
Regular
Look man, if you think managing vassals in that manner is fun then hats off to you, but in my experience all it did was make me not want to recruit more than 6 vassals period and even that was solely to prevent enemy lords from taking back their fiefs, there is very little I enjoyed about that experience relative to Bannerlord.
And I doubt there have been more than a handful of people that ever held more than half of the game's vassals in their kingdom without attempting to brute force it.
Yes. The vote screen. And seeing them actually vote on anything that isn't fief distribution.
Doing quests for gang leaders actively increases the instability of a town, and can even introduce other gang leaders. Likewise, upgrading a town's buildings and introducing anti crime policies will reduce gang activity, and can even remove it entirely from a town over time.
The only consequence there was for a town in Warband was that if it got besieged too many times, whatever Lord owned that town would receive less taxes. That's literally it.
Oh right, and in poor towns, you could talk to a wandering resident and in some rare instances you'd get a prompt to donate denars for positive relations with the town.
Last edited:
D0c1
Knight at Arms
you mean it lowers security?
and those are?
i must have all of those things ticked because i've never seen the effects of crimes.
and in warband, taxes were the main income so this affected lords' parties. in bannerlord, battle loot is the main income so you can disregard fiefs and treat them as map painting exercise.
drivegol
Regular
Yes, which has other consequences and can even lead to rebellion.
Policies that affect the loyalty, garrison, security and militia of a town among probably a few others I'm missing. Have you read them?
I've never seen a Lord's party very specifically being affected by their tax income as opposed to just how many fiefs they had, but okay. All I've ever seen them do is sit in a castle or town and generate troops out of thin air, which a Lord with multiple castles/towns is naturally going to do more often.
And even so, it's besides the point. You can complain about x/y/z feature being nothing but an income generator, but this is the only actual interactivity fiefs had in Warband besides storing troops, to give you an income. Remove that and all you have left is meaningless ownership.
Biggest problem is that except graphics (already dated at release) and dynasty mechanic (which a lot of ppl just turn off) BL didn't provide any new functioanlity. They dropped most of the ones they were talking about building hype before EA (like expanding village into castle) and gave us just a little better warband with less in it. Villages linked to castles and towns made the map a lot smaller than warband one just to name one of the most annoying things. I don't care about feasts but there is no actual internal faction politics like it was marketed dwhile they builded up hype. This game is good but at the same time it's big dissapointment.
D0c1
Knight at Arms
those are anti crime policies to you?
they do pay for them.
and fiefs in bannerlord don't even give proper amount of taxes.
bannerlord is a newer game. it should build on warband and make it even better. not take away features and lower the scope of the game to a battle simulator.
hahaha, I'm not sure i follow the conversation correctly, but there are effects from crime - mostly as a negative points to loyalty / prosperity or one of those stats in the city. Its barebones future, but indeed its there
Sorry for the double quote, couldn't edit my initial for some reason. Actually Bannerlord is a future build of warband from my perspective. Future graphics, physics and stuff, family. But if you think about it what is it about warband that makes bannerlord lesser game? The core game loop its the same, battle after battle in that sense its warband successor.
Also on the taxes, there are few ways you can progress in bannerlord. For some reason there is this possibility to take towns and castles without becoming a kingdom, so you can pretty much take most of the map before you become a kingdom and since no one will attack you unless you are in a war with them you don't need to place soldiers in the garrison (you only keep bare minimum for stability reasons). In that sense taxes were my main sorce of income . With 2 big cities and 7 castles on the border of Valandia i was making ~12k daily gold.
Last edited:
drivegol
Regular
I consider policies that affect and prevent crime to be anti crime measures, yes. Because they are.
It doesn't really matter how many mechanics and calculations are going on in the background when the player doesn't see them and they are not effective.
There have been plenty of late game Warband playthroughs where I've seen kingdoms hold on with a single fief, owned by the king because he kicked out the vassal that owned it, with like 7/8 fiefless vassals who each have a party ranging from a few dozen to a hundred because they simply haven't been at war for a month or two and spent their time squatting in a castle or patrolling the surroundings.
So first of all, the mount and blade series is a combat simulator. Everything else has always been secondary to this goal, to the point where a large amount of rpg features and lore were cut from the initial build of Mount and Blade because it wasn't part of Armagan's vision. That is not to say I personally don't want it to be more than that, but let's not delude ourselves into claiming this was ever supposed to be a full scale rpg.
That being said though, this discussion is slowly starting to become more of a pissing contest between "which game is better" rather than anything actually constructive in my opinion. The only point I was making is that Bannerlord, for all its flaws, did improve on Warband overall, and if you can't agree on that then we really have nothing to further discuss other than to agree to disagree, because I sincerely believe that.
Last edited:
But this is the thing you see most people complaining about; that the battles don't do anything. In Warband, even on the insanely cheaty "good campaign AI" setting, if you beat an enemy field army 2-3 times they usually had nothing left and wouldn't be able to threaten you for several weeks besides annoying raids. But in Bannerlord you can't kill armies faster than they replenish, so even the core game loop doesn't really do anything. You have to actively avoid field battles if you want to progress, and just go from siege to siege. Even people who didn't play Warband complain about this a lot in reviews and on the steam forums etc.
