-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
What is the next major content after Rebellions?
- 主题发起人 VonCarstein
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Recruit
I mean, that **** bangs.
Yes i fully agree- most games do not do this properly and just zerg the world. there was an early M&B mod that had a really fun invasion end game mechanic with seemingly standard AI factions even forming alliances to fight the foreign invaders but i cant remember it right now. IMO the possibility of a looming threat - be it Christian Crusaders who cant handle the debauchery of these lands (again controllable by many different mechanisms) or Viking types who thrive on Chaos etc.. All of these types of ideas could easily have ingame built in counters and caveats i just find programmers are generally too lazy or uninterested in really fleshing it out. Personally i love the idea of looming invasions that are preventable. Or even The Last Days mod for M&B "The Great War is Upon Us" -are the houses of men aligned in time to stop the mighty threat? Possible if they unify etc...
lol -yes thats what i was intending to do - people that complain that one faction is just too dominant in playthroughs but just want an easy math nerf - to me are part of the problem. God how uninteresting a solution..
Sorry was speaking too fast on that one -what i was really thinking about was Total War Empire -so Revolutionary War times not WW2. But the point is the same - the world stage is set with certain powers having unquestionable advantage and they SHOULD dominant their region. Yet you have the choice to play as really minor nations and utterly change history ie play as Native Americans and Invade Europe! Sure its really really hard as it should be but the options are there. Where as in Bannerlord -im guessing they're trying to make all factions uniform ie different clothes similar quality of troops with no variance in how they play, strategize or attack.
A fun sandbox imo, gives you a world stage with power dynamics already in effect, not a complete blank slate -and then lets you and other NPC's act upon those dynamics as you please with NPCs that have established personalities but may react different everytime depending on a myriad of factors. Theres all kinds of Sandbox type games and everyone has their own opinion of what kind are the most compelling - thats just my own 2 cents
最后编辑:
For the first time I have seen Sturgia not getting destroyed and actually expanding. In my current save they took Lageta, Ortysia, castles around Ortysia, Diathma and are pushing both Vlandia and Northern Empire back. Snowballing is a problem if it is always the same faction doing it over and over again, I don't really see a problem when multiple factions have the same chance at being dominant or if a faction that is weak makes a comeback.
TaleWorlds solution of including mercenary clans that shift around when a better opportunity appears (more gold per influence) is good, it is independent of messing with troop stats or equipment or passive bonuses. I wished they expanded the troop trees so they fielded a fully unique party instead of hiring faction troops and that clans had their own individual colors as part of their "signature" instead of adopting the boring kingdom colors.
The empires could have a confederation mechanic, like Total War, so if one faction lost enough they would consider letting go of their claims and join one of the other two and unite to push back a foreign invader, maybe even reverting back to their original status when they managed to take back their original settlements.
Edit:
As for invasions, it could be based on Warband factions, like a Rhodok rebellion in Vlandia, Khergit coup or Nords invading Sturgia
Right because they are not making enough INTERESTING and compelling ways for other AI to counter a dominant faction. Lets face it - its pretty shallow mechanics going on here. Alls im saying is there shouldnt be a problem with a dominant political and military power built into the gameworld itself -if they are always winning in an uninteresting fashion ie Speed bonus and Cav bonus -that is the lack of counter mechanics being implemented thereby making it a dull affair..
Im not familiar that Total War had this but it makes sense and really shouldnt be that hard to implement. Give AI leaders distinct personality traits give the peoples of each land strong feelings on other peoples IE racist/nationalist/tribal; give AI a strong disdain for power hungry land grabbing imperialistic (or nomadic plunderers) minded enemy factions so that they naturally align themselves to repel them.
Again this stuff has been in strategy games since cave and bone, there's just no reason it doesnt exist here on a tangible level
Revverie
These are all half baked honestly I'm not excited
Rebellions have made the map more interesting, for me at least, as factions can barely keep their new territories in line. I haven't seen one succeed yet, but just forcing armies to turn back and deal with the rebellion has been a good addition.
I guess I am just unimaginative when it comes to what other options would be available for countering factions that expand too much. The idea of "great power" in which other factions just start to hate you because you've grown doesn't sound all that appealing to me, because what I see happening is a faction becoming too strong, then other factions declare on it and stomp it to the ground because they have such an advantage in party numbers, or the target faction accepting exorbitant tribute and ending up completely broke.
As for confederations, essentially it allows assimilation of factions that share the same culture through means other than complete conquest. It was an option for peace deals if the perceived power difference was too overwhelming and it was also possible to propose this if you had good relations and your military power was greater, or if the faction was fighting against other and losing badly.
I don't think they are lazy or uninterested. It is actually hard to balance stuff in games and a lot of the time you follow false leads that don't actually solve the problem. Just look at the snowballing thread from back in August in comparison to the snowballing thread we have right now. It is even worse when you add in the moving target of other changes and additions. Like discovering a kingdom policy approximately no one ever gave a damned about (Grazing Rights) made it so that the Khuzaits were (maybe, I had a different experience in one test) gaining benefits from all the rebellions.
They aren't trying to make every faction similar. They are trying to make every faction a possible dominator, rather than watching the same three losers keep right on losing -- and fast enough that players feel rushed to achieve the same milestones every playthrough.
Right and why exactly are they trying to implement something this important at THIS stage of development? You've got a dev like mexxico trying his hardest but he doesnt even have final say when a great idea is given. So my "lazy and uninterested" is directed to those at top -where there should have existed final game vision -not "hey lets make the strategy game part now" after Early Access has already happened.
Your playing sematics - how exactly are they "trying to make all faction dominators" again? By arbitrarily adjusting perks and stupid auto-calc bonuses? Again this should have been built into the cake from the ground up -thats why they are having all these problems like you mentioned above. Its now a coding house of cards -you pull from one end the whole thing collapse. No great strategy game is ever built this way.
Edit: Did i just read in another thread that the Khuzait are also immune to Rebellion?!! Thats mindblowing that the faction that already over dominates is also made immune to the one new feature aimed to curb that. If true thats utter dereliction of duty
最后编辑:
By making sure one faction doesn't win 100% of the time? I mean, that's explicitly what's going on in that thread. It isn't just arguing semantics to say that making factions balanced is not synonymous with making them the same.
Most strategy games get major mechanics added post-release: Stellaris certainly, Total War Three Kingdoms as well, with the various faction mechanics and population system. And apparently BL never had a guiding design document or anything. They've just been adding stuff one by one for the entire time.
They definitely aren't immune to rebellions; in one test run of mine they had something like 45% of all the rebellions in Calradia. But one of the things that made their faction a little different (the policy called Grazing Rights) gave the Khuzaits a modest buffer against Loyalty losses and no one noticed.
If you read the context of all my posts on the matter my point should resonate - the mechanics needed to make an interesting disparity but competency of each faction is whats missing. I get that that thread is trying to create parity - but not in an interesting way! Let me give you an extreme example to make my point -if I changed the code so that if one faction is snowballing everytime and too early in the game - i give them a -100% Auto calc penalty for every battle until game parity is reinstated to my satisfaction. Hey guess what - i just solved your problem of 'one faction dominating too much too early' - but is it a good solution? No its awful. If you cant understand my point and continue to answer specific points with "But hey -we just want to make it so one faction blah blah blah.." well then Salut! Glad your happy
Thats a modern day phenomenon and imo a major problem with the gaming industry and early access model of today. When i first started gaming there was no internet and these games were complete when you walked out of a Computer Gaming World store at the mall. You might get one patch via a gaming magazine on their demo disks. Now its "hey lets get going developing the other half of the game" post EA release. Shame.
Right but dont you realize that things like factions pros and cons as far as auto calc are concerned should have been done at game conception -not bein figured out and fidgeted with public forumites post EA release. THAT is exactly why you have the problem of a snowballing faction and why patches havent resolved this day 1 -which they should have.
Either way -everyone has a different threshold of what they allow and tolerate as late development and what they find ridiculous. Im glad that there are devs like the ones on the forums trying to rectify this situation but if you look at it from the Meta perspective its utterly ridiculous at this stage of the game. Like deciding what else to add into a half baked cake after its already formed in the oven
Bro, I'm old enough to have actually dialed into a BBS with per minute charges to ask about a patch. It wasn't better back in the nineties, games still had **** like this going on.
Eh, the odds of them getting every balance number right without any post-release adjustments are basically non-existent. I haven't seen any game pull that off, ever. Well, I should say, I have seen games not balance their systems after release, but there was objectively broken stuff that people found and exploited.
?
Well thats disappointing as you should know better. And no this was not going on then -yes there were bugs that slipped through Q/A -but this is just lack of game production until after EA -this is intended. Surely you remember the game strategy manuals that were included with the box some 50+ pages long -there is no need for any manual with this game as there simply is just a very basic skeletal strategy game going on.
Again your using a very broad brush to make blanket statements -i can point you towards a multitude of games in which the base strategy elements and mathematics were schemed and implemented at early production. This is blatantly being just considered post EA release with devs here almost comically stating "Well let me go see what the bosses say and see if thats ok". Your being disingenuous to act as if this is the way its always been and you know it.
Mods in the first iteration of mount and blade had advanced politics and auto calc which considered all items units and terrain -there is simply no excuse.
Julio-Claudian
Sergeant Knight
Releasing a barebones game and then 'completing' it later has definitely become way more of a thing over the past decade. It's like Rome II set the standard.
And exactly a large part of the reason the higher bosses are thumbs downing some of the better ideas stemming out of here is it would be too disruptive to established code. So as you can see -late development for this aspect of the game does have profound effect on the final product. Had they given early priority to the strategy game -this wouldnt have been the case.
Yep, that game lol... I remember the siege equipment floating through walls and boats sailing onto land, what a mess.
VonCarstein
Recruit
ahahhahaahha at least we know the date of year when it comes, right?
The **** I was referring to was unbalanced messes caused by badly planned out mechanics, not continuous development.
