Dev Blog 13/06/19

Users who are viewing this thread

[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_94_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p> <p>During battles, hierarchies are of key importance: keeping the chain of command intact and knowing exactly who is in charge is vital… especially if that someone is you! That rang especially true in medieval times when the chain of command was also a reflection of how society was ordered as a whole.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/114
 
I'm left hoping that commander AI is really improved now, though, or as others said leaving your best soldiers somewhere before going on campaign will be preferable to letting them participate in suicidal battle plans.

Now that I think about it, I also wonder how will joining the battles work? This is obviously smooth when two campaign armies meet, but what with rushing in? Do they take a pause to rearrange chain of command?
 
Roccoflipside said:
Do not look here said:
You'd really like a Surprise feature, wouldn't you? Something nobody expects :shifty:

Sort of like a group of people, most likely from the Iberian peninsula, who would go around interrogating people when they least expect it? :iamamoron:

You know what I mean  :shifty:; features or mechanics that are a surprising addition and make the hype flame not go out. Such as: weapons physics, fabric physics, humphrey and different horse breeds, improvement of the campaign map, encyclopedia, Ruwa and offspring, permadeath, settlement projects, the three levels of AI, etc...

Rocco, In theory and according to development diaries, Bannerlord has a criminal operations section. Within this feature we were told without much detail that some NPC could offer us " little orthodox " ways out to achieve our goal. Maybe what you say is possible in Bannerlord, who knows?

Terco_Viejo said:
Special NPC services

PC Gamer interview April 06, 2017 (link)
[...]Getting to know an important NPC doesn’t just confer a recruitment bonus. Later in the game, your friends will offer extra services. “For example,” says Yavuz, “if you need to kidnap someone, that will be much easier if you have some friendly NPCs in the town. They open up opportunities for mischief.” The service is based on the type of NPC you befriend. “Merchant NPCs give you an advantage in trading. A gang leader can give you advantages in ‘special operations’,” Yavuz says.[...]


Just one piece of information, no desire to debate:

It is the most phenomenal misrepresentation of all the misrepresentations engineered by illustrious characters like William of Orange or John Foxe. The Inquisition was a very organized institution, much better regulated than any other at the time, and in which religion remained a matter of religion and not of the State.  It dealt with crimes that still are today, such as those known as crimes against honesty: pimping, paedophilia, white slavery, counterfeiting of coins and documents? It had a very wide field of work. The fact of constituting itself as an organized, regulated and judicially stable way of dealing with religious dissidences prevented the massacres that these provoked on the Protestant side.  The Inquisition judged a total of 44,000 cases from 1560 to 1700, resulting in approximately 1,340 deaths. And that's the whole story. Calvin sent 500 people to the stake in just 20 years for heresy. When one looks at the barbarities that happened on the Protestant side, it is that there is no color, among other things because the calculation of deaths that Protestant intolerance could provoke can only be done approximately since in most cases there was no trial, no lawyers, no right to defend oneself, it was by the barbaric procedure of lynching, nothing more. This never happened in Catholic areas, ever. Without going any further, it is estimated that in the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, in the summer of 1572, three times more people were killed for religious reasons in France than in the three centuries +- of existence of the Inquisition in Spain.

Terco_Viejo, a humble agnostic.

 
Interesting blog and a good read.  In a major battle I would prefer that my companions remain with me, as a sort of bodyguard if you like, even if the rest of my army is swallowed up into the host army.
 
Doğacan said:
TrashWish said:
This is the only game im looking forward to. Im sure Im not alone when I say this but im sick of all the multiplayer **** thats come out lately, just ends up filled with toxic exploit abusing trolls that ruin it.

Would you play a 2 hour single player beta for weeks? I rest my case.

I would. Over and over again.
 
The_BlackThorn said:
Doğacan said:
TrashWish said:
This is the only game im looking forward to. Im sure Im not alone when I say this but im sick of all the multiplayer **** thats come out lately, just ends up filled with toxic exploit abusing trolls that ruin it.

Would you play a 2 hour single player beta for weeks? I rest my case.

I would. Over and over again.

Yeah, didn't those used to be called "Demos"?
 
The_BlackThorn said:
Doğacan said:
TrashWish said:
This is the only game im looking forward to. Im sure Im not alone when I say this but im sick of all the multiplayer **** thats come out lately, just ends up filled with toxic exploit abusing trolls that ruin it.

Would you play a 2 hour single player beta for weeks? I rest my case.

I would. Over and over again.

I would do the same thing, though I would undoubtedly get bored if it were single player. What I'm trying to say is that it's not nearly as effective as a multiplayer beta when it comes to player retention. At the end of the day, a vast majority of people just like playing with others (be it friends/family or people they have met online). The most important part for me in multiplayer is that I know that an other person is on the other side trying their best to fight back. There is just nothing that compares to having competition between two groups of people pit against each other (look at sports/the olympics). Even long ago, during the Roman Games the spectators starting getting bored of seeing just 2 people fight against each other. So.... they just added more fighters, and classes of fighters to the arena. And after that they started adding different types of events which multiple people participated in. What I'm trying to say is that the vast majority of people are, historically, most entertained by competition in a team format. That is not to say that there is no place for single player, as much as I like my friends and family, I like to be alone sometimes as well.
 
this is good, very good =)

Now, I was imagining some crazy scenarios for mods, imagine if BL supports "shouts" like we have in Skyrim, that would be so funny! hahahaha
 
vicwiz007 said:
People are still complaining that beta will be multiplayer? I thought we’ve been over this many times. Here it is brought up again in a blog with nothing to do with beta...
Some people take both themselves and videogames too seriously, to me these people should give this same fervor towards finding a good therapist and engaging on psychological treatment (like urgently) :roll:
 
JuanNieve said:
Where is the madafaking devblog?
f66.png
 
This system sounds great! It could be made better by allowing player characters with higher social skills (Charisma, Pursuasion ect.) to manipulate aspects. For example, if you are the commander of the army, and have very high social skills you should be able to suggest changes to the leaders of the various formations. This way you could be certain that the formation leaders are in roles appropriate to their skills. This would be especially useful when the army is made up of your NPC companions. Another example is if the player wants to lead the calvalry formation, but only archers are left, perhaps one of the other formation leaders could be persuaded to switch formations, maybe at the cost of influence.
 
I think the system in previous games, where you control your own party, sounds a lot more fun and is more in line with real world medieval organisation, where a noble would go into battle commanding their own followers ie. their own banner. The game is called "Bannerlord" and we get some strange system where you don't command your own banner and it gets split up and homogonised across the army. I get that some people like that kind of thing, but I don't think it really fits the series for players to lose command of their own troops, when so much goes into personally recruiting and training them.

Imo it would be a lot more interesting to restrict the new system to (maybe not even all of) the Empire factions, where it might make more sense. It would also give a unique oppressive vibe to those factions.

I mean, thankfully, there are always mods, but it seems like shooting yourselves in the foot to make the soldiers under the players' commands less personal/meaningful for vanilla. In M&B, the troops had unique faces and you could see them in battle after battle and get attached to them, then in Warband, they became faceless numbers. Now, it's pointless to even care about the number, since it's beyond your control.
 
I'd really, really, really like it if it was possible to put exempts into this system. I really can't see where mercenary captains fit in that thing, unless mercenary company gets its own 'formation'. Let's face it, it probably doesn't and the mercenary gameplay is getting a shaft.
 
Back
Top Bottom