SP - General Stop Suggesting New Features.

Users who are viewing this thread

JohannTheFirst you didnt understand what i was saying. And skyrim as an RPG is weak as its more oriented as an action game. Doesnt mean that its not an great game. And yes for the record ive been reading all books in it to and running around 200 mods :wink:

BJvTYWS.png


Now watch us almost destroying an 300+ larger army then ours in realism/challenge mode ( the record of 200+ is still standing damn it )



Ps.And i also didnt compare the two games since Bannerlord is just an action wargame with rpg and strategical elements in it and there for its true to its colors
 
Last edited:
Some RPG sprinkles? Skyrim is among the games with the most dialogue script in the world. Whether you like the writing or not, you can read full books in the game and there are hundreds of mini-stories to engage in with NPCs. That's an essential part of what an RPG is in computer game terms.

...Not really, if all it takes to make an RPG is a lot of dialogue and some lore books, then practically every game released after 2010 is an RPG.

A much more useful definition of "RPG" is a game where the mechanics let you express character motivations and tell an in-game story. This usually means trying to replicate the Dungeonmaster from a tabletop game with either dynamic systems or scripted decisions.

What makes Skyrim just an "RPG sprinkles" kind of game is that you only get a handful of meaningful choices, usually whether to kill an NPC or spare them in a quest, or some other shallow moral decision. I would argue that warband / bannerlord is basically the same. You get a few chances to express your character's motivations and personality through the mechanics, but mostly it's just about grinding stats to get stronger so you can conquer the map. It feels like you're just playing as yourself in a video game, rather than as a character who exists in that video game with their own goals.
 
And just for the record, I completely disagree with the whole idea put forth in this thread. New features is what I expect the game needs before anything resembling balance can be achieved, because every aspect of the game is heavily influenced by the features they will hopefully add at a later date. Not that I'd need them to put the new features in before they massively improve the UI, that's still my main concern, but in no way can I imagine balancing to be successful in the long term at this stage.

+1

All balancing to economy, xp gains, damage etc., all this will (hopefully) be rendered useless once features are introduced that overhaul the currently lacking mechanics of the game.
Bug fixing is one thing. Losing oneself in artificially prolonging the life-span of the game's current incomplete features by introducing "balancing" to slow down progress is quite another. (Unless prolonging the current game experience is a necessity due to the lack of planned features?)
 

I understood perfectly, and your definition of the term RPG just makes it completely unusable. If you think Skyrim and Bannerlord are in the same genre right now then there simply aren't any RPGs. Bannerlord isn't chiefly marketed as an action game at its core. We apparently assume a role, it's tagged as an RPG. They both intend to be RPGs, but right now there's not enough world building, consistency, simulation and flavour to Bannerlord to really warrant it being an RPG, and therefore they're not similar. Because yes, Skyrim is an RPG.

...Not really, if all it takes to make an RPG is a lot of dialogue and some lore books, then practically every game released after 2010 is an RPG.

A much more useful definition of "RPG" is a game where the mechanics let you express character motivations and tell an in-game story. This usually means trying to replicate the Dungeonmaster from a tabletop game with either dynamic systems or scripted decisions.

What makes Skyrim just an "RPG sprinkles" kind of game is that you only get a handful of meaningful choices, usually whether to kill an NPC or spare them in a quest, or some other shallow moral decision. I would argue that warband / bannerlord is basically the same. You get a few chances to express your character's motivations and personality through the mechanics, but mostly it's just about grinding stats to get stronger so you can conquer the map. It feels like you're just playing as yourself in a video game, rather than as a character who exists in that video game with their own goals.

No. You barely have any meaningful choices in any games marketed as RPGs, because meaningful choices are extremely hard to do in computer games. Bannerlord is tagged as an RPG, Baldurs Gate is tagged as an RPG, Skyrim is tagged as an RPG, because you have a ton of world building, you usually play as a single character and immerse yourself in the world in some fashion.

You said it yourself: "A much more useful definition of "RPG" is a game where the mechanics let you express character motivations and tell an in-game story. This usually means trying to replicate the Dungeonmaster from a tabletop game with either dynamic systems or scripted decisions."

All of this applies to Skyrim, however shallow you may think it does so.

Look, you can spin it however you like, but thinking this is SUPPOSED to be some arcadey-action title seems pretty damn far-fetched from the marketing and dev responses. I'm more of an isometric BG/NWN/Icewind Dale/Pillars of Eternity/Kingmaker kind of guy myself, but thinking they're something completely different to Skyrim and what Bannerlord wants to be in itself seems fairly wrong.
 
I understood perfectly, and your definition of the term RPG just makes it completely unusable. If you think Skyrim and Bannerlord are in the same genre right now then there simply aren't any RPGs. Bannerlord isn't chiefly marketed as an action game at its core. We apparently assume a role, it's tagged as an RPG. They both intend to be RPGs, but right now there's not enough world building, consistency, simulation and flavour to Bannerlord to really warrant it being an RPG, and therefore they're not similar. Because yes, Skyrim is an RPG.



No. You barely have any meaningful choices in any games marketed as RPGs, because meaningful choices are extremely hard to do in computer games. Bannerlord is tagged as an RPG, Baldurs Gate is tagged as an RPG, Skyrim is tagged as an RPG, because you have a ton of world building, you usually play as a single character and immerse yourself in the world in some fashion.

You said it yourself: "A much more useful definition of "RPG" is a game where the mechanics let you express character motivations and tell an in-game story. This usually means trying to replicate the Dungeonmaster from a tabletop game with either dynamic systems or scripted decisions."

All of this applies to Skyrim, however shallow you may think it does so.

Look, you can spin it however you like, but thinking this is SUPPOSED to be some arcadey-action title seems pretty damn far-fetched from the marketing and dev responses. I'm more of an isometric BG/NWN/Icewind Dale/Pillars of Eternity/Kingmaker kind of guy myself, but thinking they're something completely different to Skyrim and what Bannerlord wants to be in itself seems fairly wrong.

wow you didnt even read what i typed ?! and no you didnt understand since i didnt even compared em in the first place, I was talking about structures in games and took Skyrim as an example
 
Seems you have a lack of imagination :smile: ive been doing a lot of different playthrus with almost no fighting. But yeah some could say warband was about the same (only fighting) but it was´nt. How ever as i see it, to its core....this is a war action game after all. As skyrim was as well but with some rpg sprinkles to em

1. "Some could say warband was about the same [as Bannerlord] (only fighting) but it was´nt." -> I agree.

2. "How ever as i see it, to its core....this is a war action game after all." -> I disagree. It's a mix of RPG, action, RTS and simulation. Pretty much in confusing and kinda equal parts, but that doesn't matter to much.

3. "As skyrim was as well but with some rpg sprinkles to em" -> I disagree, it's a full blown RPG, if you want, sure, call it an action RPG. But the RPG isn't sprinkles by a long shot, neither in marketing nor in practice. But Skyrim is beside the point here anyway.

So you see, 2 is my main point of contention.
 
1. "Some could say warband was about the same [as Bannerlord] (only fighting) but it was´nt." -> I agree.

2. "How ever as i see it, to its core....this is a war action game after all." -> I disagree. It's a mix of RPG, action, RTS and simulation. Pretty much in confusing and kinda equal parts, but that doesn't matter to much.

3. "As skyrim was as well but with some rpg sprinkles to em" -> I disagree, it's a full blown RPG, if you want, sure, call it an action RPG. But the RPG isn't sprinkles by a long shot, neither in marketing nor in practice. But Skyrim is beside the point here anyway.

So you see, 2 is my main point of contention.

But Skyrim is an action game pretending to be an RPG. There was another time when Elder scroll actually was an RPG same as Fallout but those times are gone because of casual gaming money industry
 
Last edited:
But Skyrim is an action game pretending to be an RPG. There was another time when Elder scroll actually was an RPG same as Fallout but those times are gone with casual gaming money industry
And I disagree, I think that you think it's not a good RPG (but a good action game, by your earlier post?), but that doesn't warrant dropping the label.

I think this is just moving the goalpost for Taleworlds. "Well, its not really an RPG anyway, so they don't really have to bother putting in deep storylines, cool quests, decisions or world building, because I mainly think this is an action game."
 
And I disagree, I think that you think it's not a good RPG (but a good action game, by your earlier post?), but that doesn't warrant dropping the label.

I think this is just moving the goalpost for Taleworlds. "Well, its not really an RPG anyway, so they don't really have to bother putting in deep storylines, cool quests, decisions or world building, because I mainly think this is an action game."

Not really i thought Skyrim was an great game but lacked in RPG. However Bannerlord has stayed true to its core in my opinion and made an even greater sequel. But yeah if you want to ask me if Skyrim is one of the best as an RPG in the elder scroll series. Then ill say no def not and that this Zebra has been loosing its stripes. Same as i can say to Fallout 4. And even funnier part now in these times of money clouding minds is that BF now trying to be COD and COD trying to be BF
 
Last edited:
I don't know bannerlord stay true to core, let alone greater sequel, it's not same as warband gameplay even, (where character do not lose because of immortal, had import and export) Warband is more true to RPG than Bannerlord due character you create and leveling do not lost, ect.
 
I don't know bannerlord stay true to core, let alone greater sequel, it's not same as warband gameplay even, (where character do not lose because of immortal, had import and export) Warband is more true to RPG than Bannerlord due character you create and leveling do not lost, ect.
well that is true though when it comes to the lvl system but in game mostly it stays the same
 
I totally agree. After all the hype about the various things you could do in the game (including death and children), the only real thing you can do is fight. I get that it's in EA, but its a little disheartening to be told things and come to find out after 8 years (about 2 years ago was when they really started talking about features I believe, correct me it I'm wrong) of waiting we have to wait some more.
Yes. There are some people *cough* @Dr-Shinobi *cough* who claim that there is more to do than just fight... I'm really curious to know what these people are talking about. I'm talking about playing this game WITHOUT MODS... in its current state. What exactly can a person do other than fight (or trade - even trading will require a battle or two) without a mod? -- I'm seriously asking. -- Fighting (besides trading) is the only thing in this game that seems to function as intended... and yet, even this feature has its issues.

I just watched part of the interview, up to about 3 minutes, and what he said about "...so many features" makes me question what he considers features. Participate in battles? Check. Own fiefs? Check. Trade? Check. Start a faction? Sort of. Engage in diplomacy? Not quite. The game is ok in it's current state, but personally to get more out of it I have to go to a third party, meaning mods.

And here is where I'm a little confused - considering everything that was said leading up to the early access release - the reality today does not match those statements / claims. So.. saying "it's Early Access" as a reason the game is in the state it's in is not a valid argument considering what had been said, verbally, by higher ups.

And if this game is already essentially feature complete (as Armagan said the game was going to be upon EA release) then...

Seems you have a lack of imagination :smile: ive been doing a lot of different playthrus with almost no fighting.
Have you? Without mods? What have you been doing and for how long? I'm honestly curious.

i find it funny though that they said clearly were pre releasing it for you guys to try it out and we have more work to do and will prob take 1+ years.
Yes. But the amount of work that needs to be done seems to be enormous. Also, the fact that the game was released (in early access) with infinite loops, hard freezes and crashes - errors with 100% reproducibility - that would've and should've been found by some lone tester and fixed in an afternoon...

Yes it's in EA... but to a lot of fans who have been following the development of this game for years... what is in this game and how it's functioning is a surprising, gobsmacking let down.

I'm having fun with it... a lot of fun, but that's because this isn't an RPG, or an action game, or a strategy game, it's really a unique blend of genres that is not offered by any other game (that I know of). I both love this game and am disappointed with it at the same time, and I completely understand where the dissatisfied people are coming from (even though I am very satisfied playing this game).

This whole "but it's in EA..." argument only works for some things but not the entirety of this game. If they really believe that the game will be ready in about a year, how many features do you actually think will be in here upon "official" release?

I love playing this game but to ignore the glaring issues and to just explain them away by saying "it's EA" is like saying the glass is half full... it's not half full, it's not half empty... it's both. Acknowledging only one half of the situation is ignoring the other.

Yes it's in EA, but there are issues in here that many think (and may have been lead to believe) should've / would've been addressed prior to EA.
 
How exactly do you know what's best? Are you an employee of TW? Are you helping them fix the bugs? How do you know if they're even looking at these forums atm?

So i'm not the one saying whats best. The devs said and are currently focusing on fixing bugs and crashes and balance changes for the next week or so. I'm not making it up. And i have not helped them fix bugs but i made a thread suggesting balance changes for Sturgian spearmen. And it got on the " SP Top Feedback & Suggestions" thread. And sure enough they got buffed shortly after. So yes i am helping the game get better. Also i know that they are watching the forums because of that thread i talked about and how i got on there.

Apparently everyone is worth responding to because you have responded to everyone. But you are suggesting that we stop suggesting. Does that even make sense? Does this thread even belong in this subforum?

I responded to everyone but i stopped responding to a few after there was no point. I respond to see if they are worth my time. And you miss my point on suggestions. I am specifically saying to stop suggesting NEW FEATURES while suggestion balance changes and such should be done more. I am not suggesting any new features.

Yes, I'm pretty sure they do know what they're doing. But do you? Because apparently it's ok for you to put suggestions in the forum meant for feedback, but not the rest of us because we "don't know what we're doing"?

We "the community" are not looking for your feedback on our feedback unless it actually has something to do with a suggestion we've made. I know you're probably just going to tell me to piss off, but hey, this isn't actually a constructive post. I'm sure if the devs don't want anymore suggestions, they will let us know. Until that point, the community will keep suggesting fixes and additions to the game and hope they get a chance to either implement the fixes/additions or not. It's up to them. Not you.

It's called "Feedback & Suggestions" not feedback and feedback. Neither does it say feedback to the devs or anything specific like that. I am giving feedback and a suggestion to the community. No, i won't tell you to piss off because unlike a couple others you are being respectful and civil. Thats why i stopped responding to them. This is a constrictive thread because it's got a bunch of people talking about an issue of the game right now. Namely the entire game. This thread exploded and brought some attention to priorities and the future of the game. And the devs will see it cuz it's at the top of the sub-forum.
I know it's not up to me on how they function but i'm trying to change what kind of suggestions they get and have a much needed big discussion.

Have a Great Day.
 
I'm not talking to the devs on this one, i'm talking to the other people like me that are suggesting stuff to the devs to help the game grow. But right now we don't need new features. We just need bug fixed a balance changes, the devs are not going to had an big features any time soon so stop suggesting them. Suggesting balance ideas and reporting issues or bugs is what we need right now.
they are patching every week, i dunno wtf ure talking about. the devs wont just stop bug fixing bcuz more and more suggestions come on the forum. Balancing ideas can also come from suggestions (and the features suggested), I think we should leave the devs the option to choose what to include or not, and that means continually posting our suggestions and feedback.
 
they are patching every week, i dunno wtf ure talking about. the devs wont just stop bug fixing bcuz more and more suggestions come on the forum. Balancing ideas can also come from suggestions (and the features suggested), I think we should leave the devs the option to choose what to include or not, and that means continually posting our suggestions and feedback.
What i'm saying is to just hold off on the new feature suggestions FOR NOW. Because balance changes and bugs and optimization are more important. And it's better if everyone just focuses on those right now. Because if half of the community suggests stuff that won't even get put in the game anytime soon, then thats wasted man power which could be used on more urgent things.
 
Yes. There are some people *cough* @Dr-Shinobi *cough* who claim that there is more to do than just fight... I'm really curious to know what these people are talking about.

Have you? Without mods? What have you been doing and for how long? I'm honestly curious.

Yes and without mods of any kind.... ive been a master smith which took me around 3-4 irl game days but due to new patch had to scrap it since im to starting a new character when the bigger ones come , Ive been an evil manipulator of the court fueling the influence of the Vladian empire with money and power from trades and also built a trading Empire with an master Khuz tradesman.... all which ive enjoyed and reaching insane levels of money which can and will be later utilized in game,,,,think there was something else ive been missing here during soon 500 hours of game play. Could mention my top Commander to who barely lifted a finger in fights but doesn't count i guess
 
Last edited:
I'm not talking to the devs on this one, i'm talking to the other people like me that are suggesting stuff to the devs to help the game grow. But right now we don't need new features. We just need bug fixed a balance changes, the devs are not going to had an big features any time soon so stop suggesting them. Suggesting balance ideas and reporting issues or bugs is what we need right now.
You wont tell me what to do dickhead I will keep suggesting penis infection features until its true or someone mods it in and there's nothing you can do about it
 
think there was something else ive been missing here during soon 500 hours of game play
By the gods! That's a lot of hours. The game came out a month ago... that's 30 days times 24 hours.... the game has been out for roughly 720 hours and you've clocked about 500! Wow. I thought my 200 plus was a lot. I bow to you sir!

Yes and without mods of any kind.... ive been a master smith which took me around 3-4 irl game days but due to new patch had to scrap since had to start a new character , Ive been an evil manipulator of the court fueling the influence and the Vladian empire with money from trades and also been a master tradesman all which ive enjoyed and reaching insane levels of money which can and will be later utilized in game,,,,
I definitely acknowledge that a trader play-through is viable.

I actually like the smithing the way it is. It's hard and time consuming - you can't really be a master smith and a world renowned warlord at the same time. I like it like that - you can choose one path or the other but not both at the same time.

But "evil manipulator of the court ..." ummm, what? diplomacy isn't really a thing yet. How are you manipulating the court? And how did you get enough influence to substantially "manipulate the court" without fighting???
 
By the gods! That's a lot of hours. The game came out a month ago... that's 30 days times 24 hours.... the game has been out for roughly 720 hours and you've clocked about 500! Wow. I thought my 200 plus was a lot. I bow to you sir!


I definitely acknowledge that a trader play-through is viable.

I actually like the smithing the way it is. It's hard and time consuming - you can't really be a master smith and a world renowned warlord at the same time. I like it like that - you can choose one path or the other but not both at the same time.

But "evil manipulator of the court ..." ummm, what? diplomacy isn't really a thing yet. How are you manipulating the court? And how did you get enough influence to substantially "manipulate the court" without fighting???

Ty sir well im not really there yet still got around 50 hours left which i will go thru in prob 4-5 days or so
DlUPcMR.png


Ive been prepping a letter to the forums when i hit it xD

But yes diplomacy still have a long way to go but theres ways to go far with money i tell ya along with perfect charm as well as Stewardship :wink:
And when you can tailor the politics and allies how you see fit then you can do the math :wink:
 
Last edited:
Ty sir well im not really there yet still got around 50 hours left which i will go thru in prob 4-5 days or so
DlUPcMR.png
Nonetheless still impressive. Makes me feel like I've been slacking on Bannerlord haha.

But yes diplomacy still have a long way to go but theres ways to go far with money i tell ya along with perfect charm as well as Stewardship :wink:
And when you can tailor the politics and allies how you see fit then you can do the math :wink:
Hmmm... I haven't had the same experience when it comes to diplomacy. It appeared woefully undeveloped in my previous play-throughs almost to the point of being non-functional.
 
Back
Top Bottom