No char renown

[Alien Oscar]

It's a bad system what TW proposed today:
"With Bannerlord, the key difference is that renown is now attached to clans rather than characters. Clan members can earn renown for their clan by performing a number of actions, such as completing quests, winning battles, or competing in tournaments. By acting in the name of their clan, they are effectively increasing the fame of the clan as a whole."

It doesn't make sense that a new member of the clan enjoys the same benefits of a war hero. There should be both character and clan renown with tiers of their own, perhaps a char is born with a fraction of it's clan renown just like in CK2.

[Hatchero]

Reality in olden times it did not matter what a person did as if they didnt have a family name behind them the climb was only limited so far. I watch boring documentaries and this is a common theme "He could of married the queen but sadly he was born into a landless family".

[Alien Oscar]

İlk olarak Hatchero tarafından gönderildi:

Reality in olden times it did not matter what a person did as if they didnt have a family name behind them the climb was only limited so far. I watch boring documentaries and this is a common theme "He could of married the queen but sadly he was born into a landless family".

That is another mechanic altogether which we already had: "Right to rule"
I hope they keep it and give it an update

[Samantha Raven]

İlk olarak Sheriff of Nothingham tarafından gönderildi:

Honestly, it makes sense for the period they're simulating. Medieval war and politics weren't about adventurer-heroes gaining personal glory, they were about houses. If I go out at the age of 17 and slay the enemy king in single combat, people aren't going to be saying "Did you hear about the young Lord Harrick of Nothingham? They say he slew the king of Rhodoks with his own bardiche!"

Instead, they would say "Did you hear about that young upstart? The Nothingham boy? He slew the king and Rhodoks in single combat!"

And then people would talk of my house and the sorts of heroes it's capable of producing.

Thats highly isnt true.
There bin many single warriors or people that fame was so high in history it over shadowed kings and queens them self.

Take the ancient times warriors and fighters had more fame then the leaders governoring like Achilles,
And many of the most famous kings or queens where famous not for there ruling but for there fighting and there deeds of battle and not there house.

genghis khan, Ching Shih, many others.
The reason many such indivduels wouldnt have bin recorded in history in medevil or older times most likely 2 reasons. Back then a really well known or famious person wouldnt have bin recorded in history if they where not in a house this dosnt mean they where not famous and every one spoke about them and there deeds its cause medevil times didnt record indivduel history other then the royal family and the current king or queen.

Oftin those same people wouldnt wantted to have there scribes record some one that has more fame or loved by there people out of spite or not to hurt there own fame threw out history so that those of that era are forgotten over time.

Now for 2nd one tied to that last part of first is war and jealousy and rights of literature not every one also knew how to read and write it was reserved mostly for people born of noble birth so even a commoner who mite built a huge fame like Marco Polo for some thing but was un literate wouldnt have cared to have there deeds recorded and most likely no one else would have spend money to hire a scribe to record there deeds.
Scribes back then was not like today they made there money by working for nobles and such recording what the nobles wantted them to write the majority of people didnt no how to read and write so scribes didnt make money selling books or scrolls or storys.

There a reason story tellers and bards where very big in sources of entertainment cause story tellers tell storys they heard or made up where bards would sing and tell storys based off literature where a story teller was eliterate.

But ya if you look closely and story all aspects of history and see how all aspects of history comes togather and how things where back then you know what u said is highly not true and there most likely so many people that mite bin extremly famious back then just it was never recorded.

[Tazmo]

The real question should be "Why did Taleworlds switch renown from the character to Clan?" To answer this question you have to determine haw many in-game years it will take to conquer the entire country.

Bannerlord's map is three times that of Warband's map. Bannerlord has eight major factions vs Warband's six. Bannerlord has dozens of sub-factions and Warband had none and they both have looters, bandits, and Sea Raiders. There is so much more I could put here but I wont.

My guess is it will take between 50 and 150 in-game years to complete the takeover. I estimate two to five generations to complete the game.

I think this might be the reason Taleworlds made the switch from character to clan

So I ask you how many in-game years will it take you to complete the game?

[Pira]

İlk olarak Tazmo tarafından gönderildi:

The real question should be "Why did Taleworlds switch renown from the character to Clan?" To answer this question you have to determine haw many in-game years it will take to conquer the entire country.

Bannerlord's map is three times that of Warband's map. Bannerlord has eight major factions vs Warband's six. Bannerlord has dozens of sub-factions and Warband had none and they both have looters, bandits, and Sea Raiders. There is so much more I could put here but I wont.

My guess is it will take between 50 and 150 in-game years to complete the takeover. I estimate two to five generations to complete the game.

I think this might be the reason Taleworlds made the switch from character to clan

So I ask you how many in-game years will it take you to complete the game?

time to SPEEEEEEEEDRUNNNNNN

[Morkonan]

İlk olarak Alien Oscar tarafından gönderildi:

It's a bad system what TW proposed today:
"With Bannerlord, the key difference is that renown is now attached to clans rather than characters. Clan members can earn renown for their clan by performing a number of actions, such as completing quests, winning battles, or competing in tournaments. By acting in the name of their clan, they are effectively increasing the fame of the clan as a whole."

It doesn't make sense that a new member of the clan enjoys the same benefits of a war hero. There should be both character and clan renown with tiers of their own, perhaps a char is born with a fraction of it's clan renown just like in CK2.

No individual player Renown? No NPCs, and thus "the game", are impressed by the player when they walk into the room?

What next?

"Player's don't actually "win" battles. Instead, the entire army gets credited with the victory. The player as well as the notable Lords and Kings stay at home and vigorously churn butter until the game is over."

There are some games that purposefully make the player feel as if they're "small" and "inconsequential" in the greater scheme of things. ie: Kenshi

But, THAT IS NOT WARBAND.

"Warband" is a game with a setting that is quite literally just waiting for the player to show up and "fix" the world, conquering it for themselves or their chosen faction. It is NOT the sort of player experience where the player's notoriety or power is put in the background.

In every single case, Warband emphasizes the actions of the player and the game's playthrough is directly related to that. There are no scripts the player has to slog through, no "event system" the player has to constantly react to, no set of triggers that act to keep the player in-line with some scripted story.

It's a sand-box game, for crying out loud!

In case Taleworlds forgot, a sandbox, open world, kind of game where one of the player's goals is actually stomping the entire world into submission using brute-force is particularly geared towards one thing - Focusing on the player's actions as uniquely important.

In those kind of games, developers WANT to give the player a feeling of "becoming a true Power and rising from "nothing" to becoming... "everything.""

So, now "Renown" is something you win so you can give it to something that isn't your character instead of what would be a much better system if they just separated out what they "think" they want from what the player really wants....

Clan Renown

Individual Player Renown

Two different things.

Fix't.

Honestly, though, I see no reason for "Clan Renown." It's stupid... Clans don't "play the game," the player's "character" should be what is focused on. If they want to do something for groups, factions, and clans, make it a different sort of stat.