Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Este tópico foi trancado 
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
1 
Denunciar esta mensagem
The reason it is not currently in the game is because every single system, mechanics and design decision is based around you being a ruler. Succession and vassal interactions are both part of ck3's core gameplay and neither got anything to do with being a lowborn.
Naturally, every single patch, expansion or dlc focuses on improving various sides of being a ruler, either mechanically or narratively.
In essense, adding commoner gameplay would be like making a completely new game, and expanding on it would mean making two games at the same time. Which would, of course, only serve to further stall the development of something that is still fairly bare bones several years after release.
If you want commoner gameplay try Medieval Dynasty, or (if you're after Sims-like "rags to riches" power fantasy) SAELIG or even the old Guild II Renaissance.
Who said anything about having to be a lowborn peasant toiling in the fields, you could be an exiled noble, an unlanded younger brother of the current king, a leader of a knight order or a mercenary band. There's nothing about being unlanded that requires being lowborn.
There's not much emphasis on you actually ruling as much as there is on your character and how they deal with the events around them. There's not much difference between your character deciding whether or not to help the peasants rebuild after a flood or how to get past the bandits blocking the way while they are on a pilgrimage.
Nah, it wouldn't require that much more effort than adding in Nomads, which were in CK2. Or the tours, tournaments and travel from the upcoming DLC. Or an !Event Pack". Most of the events in the game deal with your character directly and what they do, not with your realm as a whole.
Not to mention that expanding what unlanded characters go through will affect rulers too. Most of your character's family members and courtiers will be unlanded. Making them deeper will make it more fun managing your court and such.
For example, there's a mercenary company with great reputation and awesome perks? Well, you better keep them on your good side or they will join your enemies. Some charismatic peasant is trying to turn the people against you and organize a peasant uprising? Well, you better get rid of them. Or maybe convince them work for you and destabilize the realm of your enemies.
All of that could make the game more fun and make you care more about the NPC characters that are staying at your court and the world at large.
They already made characters a lot more important by making Knights, a core part of your army, actual characters that you need to recruit. Why not expand the mercenary system in the same way. Or further develop knights, the new DLC is already doing that with the Accolades system.
And as I said already, Hearts of Iron 4 Goverment in Exile-style system for this game. That's about at the same level as Regents, which are to be added very soon.
Those are all very different games from CK3.
This inherently lacks this freedom and makes your gameplay reactive rather than proactive. The ruler who hosts you/your brother the king wants to make you his court jester or jail you then sacrifice you to Odin? Welp, not much you can do about it.
King of Poland offers you pay to fight Rus for him. If you accept your band becomes a part of his army and goes where he wants until the contract expires. That's it, all your gameplay.
It's literally like asking to be a NPC guardsman in Skyrim.
If you've been following dev diaries, then you're probably used to feature questions in the comments and PDX replying "sorry, this was beyond our scope" and "unfortunately, we were a small team". Or the semi-recent poll between 3 dlc packs, with each one being about an area where the game really needs improvement?
It's evident only what the majority is asking for (and what has the potential to sell) got the chance of making it into the game at some point. "Unlanded gameplay" is clearly not it.
Regardless, most of the events in the game deal with your character AS A RULER. Of course, you don't have to be a ruler to make out in the privy, but that's beside the point.
Oh, but I disagree. There is character progression. Family/dynasty progression. Nobility ranks. Powers associated with them. Politics, intrigue, dealing with your rivals.
If that's not what you're asking for and you'd like the game about a Medieval mercenary band, then I'm afraid ck3 simply does not have the systems needed to accomodate you. Unless you just want visual novel style events loosely associated with it.
As a vassal your liege can make you his jester, or jail you or kill you and it would be better gameplay if you were asked to join your lieges war when you are his Marshall or could be a knight.
Or the King of Poland asks you to join him in battle and you accept, there are several events during the war gaining you gold, prestige, one where your best friend is slain on the battle field and others where you gain prisoners then when victory is almost in the king of Poland’s hands the King of Rus offers you his daughters hand and his richest County to join him. completely turning the tide of the battle. It’s literally nothing like playing an NPC.
What’s evident of what the masses are asking for? The choices the devs have made? I would say far more would want unlanded gameplay than wanted Royal Court.
All of the current family, dynasty and lifestyle progression currently in the game would flow elegantly with an unlanded option.
I much rather a modder create this CYOA styled book, this wouldn't add a mechanical feature to the game, and I would like to a decent chunk of unsatisfied customers with the "event" packs, that people complain about on these discussion boards near the daily.
Events, and by extension what is suggested here, just aren't as popular to justify PDX spending time and resources on it.
However this is an excellent mod idea, so I encourage those interested to modify it.
With an unlanded character.
Let's talk about agency vs. structure.
From the discussion so far, an unlanded character doesn't have uch agency. It looks like they'll be going on auto pilot, clicking buttons for staff buffs. To some, that is fun, but to me that reminds me of mobile game mechanics. and I despise mobile games.
Let's talk actual game design.
Look to current unlanded NPCs in the game. They significantly lose the ability of choice on what they can and cannot do. If they're a knight, they're stck to the whis and directions of their kings. If they're an agent or courtier, same thing. The only thing an unlanded character is free to do is leave the court to join another court.
I don't know how T&T will handle this, but right now, duels are rock paper scissors, and skill checks. I guarantee the great majority of players don't read the flavor text, and just click buttons and save scum until they win the duel *unless Iron Man.
Maybe, if you're hired as a knight, you can form your own detachment to a king's army, but your retinue would be INCREDIBLY smaller, and not fit with the current combat mechanics of this game.
I am all for a storybook like mod, it's possible to do, but I cannot see how else unlanded gameplay would work without completely gutting CK3.
Edit: Rulers are hard coded not to participate in battles, they won't ever die. Knights are like 1000 damage, 100 toughness, all it takes is 11 levies to kill a knight.
How many knights, throughout the game, do we lose in battle? On an average war, I probably lose 1-3 knights. Some have to retire due to wounds.
That mercenary example was also explained by Kimlin. It's not hard to actually make it interesting. And there are mods that allow you to play a guard in Skyrim. It's not that hard to make it somewhat interesting. There's a difference between an NPC guard that just walks around on a scripted path repeating "arrow in the knee" lines and the PC being a guard with their own quests (in the vein Mage's Guild etc.) and the ability to investigate crimes and arrest people. Does the latter really sound entirely uninteresting?
As for the events, there is of course the default assumption that you are the ruler, Because that's the only thing you can be. But if you count the events that directly have something to do with ruling, then there's not actually that many of them. The rest could easily be reflavored. And new ones added that would have a counterpart for rulers.
As for Paradox devs... they've said plenty of things. If it's sufficiently popular, it can happen. And it doesn't have to be much more complex than whatever those tournaments, tours and weddings they are going to add already do.
And while there's many ideas for an unlanded playstyle, it doesn't mean it has to be all that. There could just be a more limited form of that to allow your dynasty to come back from the brink or simply make it so being deposed once doesn't mean an automatic game over if you have strong allies.
For example, I keep repeating that Hearts of Iron 4 has Goverments in Exile. Why can't CK3 have a Court in Exile? That would fit very well. Especially with the travelling mechanics introduced in the next update. Doesn't have to be overly complex and more of a temporary thing akin to regents if they don't want to create an unlanded style of play.
Don't tell us.
Show us.
Create a mod, prove to us that it can work.
If you don't have the ability to create a mod.
Find someone who shares your passion who can, or use this as a learning opportunity.
We can debate all day, but showing has always been more powerful than telling.
If you look at it that way, the landed character is also "clicking at buttons and getting stat buffs". The only thing that's different is the flavor around it. So, bad argument.
I am not arguing with you, so it isn't a bad argument.
Let's treat this like a discussion, not an argument, okay?^^
Edit: arguments imply a true/false dichotomy or a best-in-slot solution. Neither those are being discussed here. This is a discussion, a dialog, a conversation. Not an argument.
Uhh... Not at all. As a landed character, you have realm management, house fueds, holy wars, factions, disloyal vessels, and the list goes on and on.
I can see the flavor for some things mentioned for unlanded gameplay. For example, if you're mercenary band is hired to win a war and you could control the army.
But, short of a complete overhaul of CK3s mechanics, unlanded gameplay just does not sound very interesting compared to landed gameplay.
It sounds like you guys want to just play bannerlord or wartales.
Argument = Point of contention in a discussion. But let's not argue about semantics and actually discuss the topic of this thread.
Realm management
Can be substituted with alternate mechanics or left out entirely. Or in the case of being a council member, you can get some limited ability in that category that suits your character's position. This could apply even to landed vassal councilors, same way as a regent.
House Feuds
No reason house feuds should stop just because your family lost their holdings. If anything, it make them even more dangerous. And I don't think the house feud stops in an NPC house you are feuding with loses their holdings.
Holy Wars
Plenty of reasons for landless characters to engage in a Crusade. Great way to gain land too.
Factions
Plenty of reasons for a landless character to engage with this system.
Disloyal Vassals
Plenty of reasons for landless characters to engage with landed characters who offer them opportunities for service or who refuse to pay them or even become their enemy.
Any overhaul to the mechanics wouldn't be much larger than the travel system they are already implementing.
Both of those games are entirely different.
Yeah, that's about my opinion too. It would be good to have and it would fit the game, but there's things I want more.
Correct, there is no point of contention, at least not on my end. So there is no argument :P.
How familiar are you with coding or game design?
Based on what you've discussed so far, I di not think you realize the significance of overhaul required or the core design that is the "soul" of this game.
I also do not think you're understanding what I and Doc have been trying to address.
Try and look at your wants as an engineer. My point has always been about the practicality and feasibility of it.
At core, realism vs idealism.
Unlanded, in the current game, can only work as a storybook event. How the systems are designed, like war and combat, it will not work. That's why I'm adamant about showing not telling.
Also, consider player agency. What are you able to do as a player? Take what you're able to do as a player, remove the landed mechanic, do you realize how that would fundamentally break the game? Not just mechanically, but design intention as well?
That's kinda my point. The mechanics discussed so far are from completely different games. That's the fundamental problem with this entire discussion and why we're talking in circles.
In conclusion, I think unlanded gameplay sounds kinda boring, but that doesn't mean I'm entirely against it. However, I sincerely don't believe it fits within the DNA/vision/soul of CK3 as a dynastic simulator, but that's just my humble opinion.