Thank you TW for breaking all the mods again, sigh...

Users who are viewing this thread

Back in the armchair psychologist's seat :smile: :

With respect to all posters, I would propose that the volume + heat on this thread have less to do with any actual specific hot-fixing events and more to do with varying definitions of acceptable EA release. The response to the hot-fixing complaints - that it's EA, what did you expect, how could they possibly account for mods etc. - is so obvious that it beggars belief that the complainants don't already know that. It has to be about something else - about underlying frustrations with the whole EA premise.

For simplicity, let's describe player attitudes by 2 poles:

Extreme player type 1 has zero expectations for EA game playability; they are happy to pay the $50 even if it only buys them an chance to see a version of the game months before it otherwise would have been released.

Extreme player type 2 is fundamentally suspicious of EA as a concept; they expect a fully playable and basically finished game, with the EA tag either indicative of superficial changes before full release or otherwise lacking in any bearing on their rights to expect quality at launch.

Most of us, in some capacity or another, fall between these extremes.

Within that context, I think those who are complaining about hotfixes breaking mods are a little closer to type 2 relative to the center. That is, even if they were understanding that the EA game wouldn't be perfect, they thought that at least all of the basic core features - e.g. diplomacy, messengers, basic garrison management, etc. - would be present in some form, such that the game is essentially playable even if flawed or lacking in narrative fluff. As it is, though, the lack of some of these very basic features arguably makes some mods - e.g. Diplomacy Fixes, Community Patch, etc. - essential to playing the game in anything like a basic way. So, when hotfixes from TW devs break the viability of those mods which add in very basic game mechanics, it activates their underlying frustration that TW released the game in EA with those basic features missing in the first place.

I personally can see it either way. But let's not pretend that this is really about adjudicating the finer points of hot fix behavior.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm closer to extreme player 1, I realize its early release and the standard and beta release will both break mods. Just some of the mods at least fix the game the way it should be working so I'd prefer they prioritize making the parts we have work the way they are supposed to versus a newer feature. Sometimes the mods though are nothing more than a replaced .xml file so I don't see what the problem would be to take them as is. For instance on perks, I'd rather clicking on them do nothing then the activate them but nothing is really happening in the background. At least then I know "ok that part of the game isn't working yet."
 


  • Fixed a rare crash on the campaign map regarding village items.
  • Fixed a crash related to newly spawned caravans.
  • Fixed a crash that occurred when trying to talk with a companion while inside hideouts.
  • Fixed an issue with missing dialogues for supporting a kingdom in the main storyline after loading which blocked progression.
  • Fixed a client crash on crowded servers when the amount of created weapons in the environment exceeded a certain threshold.
 
I don't mind if v1.5 will break v1.4 mod. But a hotfix that does basically nothing and break all the mods? No
For all we know, the changes introduced in the hotfix are necessary as a baseline to the upcoming major patch. Unless you're doing detailed code audits in between hotfixes, you can't really claim any one of them "does nothing."

Also, the only thing you can rely on from Taleworlds is scant communication, and plenty of patches have been found to do far more than what was detailed in the notes.
 
Back in the armchair psychologist's seat :smile: :

With respect to all posters, I would propose that the volume + heat on this thread have less to do with any actual specific hot-fixing events and more to do with varying definitions of acceptable EA release. The response to the hot-fixing complaints - that it's EA, what did you expect, how could they possibly account for mods etc. - is so obvious that it beggars belief that the complainants don't already know that. It has to be about something else - about underlying frustrations with the whole EA premise.

For simplicity, let's describe player attitudes by 2 poles:

Extreme player type 1 has zero expectations for EA game playability; they are happy to pay the $50 even if it only buys them an chance to see a version of the game months before it otherwise would have been released.

Extreme player type 2 is fundamentally suspicious of EA as a concept; they expect a fully playable and basically finished game, with the EA tag either indicative of superficial changes before full release or otherwise lacking in any bearing on their rights to expect quality at launch.

Most of us, in some capacity or another, fall between these extremes.

Within that context, I think those who are complaining about hotfixes breaking mods are a little closer to type 2 relative to the center. That is, even if they were understanding that the EA game wouldn't be perfect, they thought that at least all of the basic core features - e.g. diplomacy, messengers, basic garrison management, etc. - would be present in some form, such that the game is essentially playable even if flawed or lacking in narrative fluff. As it is, though, the lack of some of these very basic features arguably makes some mods - e.g. Diplomacy Fixes, Community Patch, etc. - essential to playing the game in anything like a basic way. So, when hotfixes from TW devs break the viability of those mods which add in very basic game mechanics, it activates their underlying frustration that TW released the game in EA with those basic features missing in the first place.

I personally can see it either way. But let's not pretend that this is really about adjudicating the finer points of hot fix behavior.

This is one, if not the most adult and nonviolent formulated post I've seen for years!
+++
 
This is one, if not the most adult and nonviolent formulated post I've seen for years!
+++

@TheShermanator does that! I am glad that some of the post-Bannerlord forum users appear to be sensible people :smile: .

On topic, I am with @Askorti, although I doubt that there actually is a way for TW to do that. Modding the beta branch does not make any sense at all, and anyone who uses mods with the beta branch should expect to have a bad time. Now in this particular case, mods were also broken for the latest stable branch, so I can see why people who were not expecting that would be upset. But the fact is, if you want a stable experience with mods you have to stick to the older stable branches. Play 1.3.1 or older. It seems like an easy solution to me.
 
. Now in this particular case, mods were also broken for the latest stable branch, so I can see why people who were not expecting that would be upset.
At last someone who realizes the problem. I wonder if most people actually reads the last message and figures out the rest
 
What about all the vanilla version players (and there's lots of us too), if 2 lines of code will improve our gameplay why can’t we get the update?

And also as beta we all need to test any and all code charges as soon as possible, to see what it may effect, before the game advances too far down the road, where it becomes harder to fix!
 
@TheShermanator does that! I am glad that some of the post-Bannerlord forum users appear to be sensible people :smile: .

On topic, I am with @Askorti, although I doubt that there actually is a way for TW to do that. Modding the beta branch does not make any sense at all, and anyone who uses mods with the beta branch should expect to have a bad time. Now in this particular case, mods were also broken for the latest stable branch, so I can see why people who were not expecting that would be upset. But the fact is, if you want a stable experience with mods you have to stick to the older stable branches. Play 1.3.1 or older. It seems like an easy solution to me.

Dumb question time: Is there already a thread on here (or somewhere else on the internetz) that outlines a step-by-step for staying on or rolling back to prior stable branches of the game? (1.3, 1.4 after the 1.5 branch rolls out)? I'm willing to accept that I'm an idiot on this, but it has never been self-evident to me how to do that. I play (launch the game) via Steam, and whenever there is a patch, the update appears to simply start (visible on the Steam interface) automatically.

I'm not looking for anyone to drop what they're doing and write out the process, but if someone has already done that, I'd love a redirect.

My own crass opinion: I'm very glad in general that the devs are patching the game so aggressively, but personally, I think the game presents a better current player experience not at branch 1.X (where X is the latest patch) w/out mods, but rather 1.(X-1) w/ mods. Staying on old stable branches for a while seems like a decent way to have our cakes and eat them too.
 
What about all the vanilla version players (and there's lots of us too), if 2 lines of code will improve our gameplay why can’t we get the update?

And also as beta we all need to test any and all code charges as soon as possible, to see what it may effect, before the game advances too far down the road, where it becomes harder to fix!
I'd say if you want to test it you may play the Beta version. If you want to test mods you may play the stable version. Update the Beta as often as you want. Update the stable once a month.
If you want to play the stable version and want to update often then I don't know.
 
Dumb question time: Is there already a thread on here (or somewhere else on the internetz) that outlines a step-by-step for staying on or rolling back to prior stable branches of the game? (1.3, 1.4 after the 1.5 branch rolls out)? I'm willing to accept that I'm an idiot on this, but it has never been self-evident to me how to do that. I play (launch the game) via Steam, and whenever there is a patch, the update appears to simply start (visible on the Steam interface) automatically.

I'm not looking for anyone to drop what they're doing and write out the process, but if someone has already done that, I'd love a redirect.

My own crass opinion: I'm very glad in general that the devs are patching the game so aggressively, but personally, I think the game presents a better current player experience not at branch 1.X (where X is the latest patch) w/out mods, but rather 1.(X-1) w/ mods. Staying on old stable branches for a while seems like a decent way to have our cakes and eat them too.

Imgur Image how to do it on Steam

EDIT: My personal fav is 1.2.1 because it ran quite well as it was actual and most beloved mechanics are available (mods) for it.
 
Last edited:
Thanks to someone reminding me weeks ago about using Beta tab to use previous versions of the game I've reverted and have been playing 1.2.1 since 1.3 broke my 60+ mods for several weeks now.

-First turn off Automatic UPDATES in your Steam settings.
-Go into Steam Library, click on the Properties tab for Mount and Blade II.
-Click Betas
-Via the drop down arrow click on the version of the game where all of you mods were still working
-click CLOSE(bottom right corner, no codes required)
-restart Steam(not required I think but i do it just in case)
-Confirm you've reverted by launching the game and checking the game version at the bottom left corner of the MB2 Launcher. It's the fine print LEFT of the PLAY button. Should say something like e1.2.1.227732 community-fix 2.1.0 or whichever version you've reverted to. If not RESTART STEAM. If still not working go back through the process again.

Voila. You're playing whichever version of the game last worked with all of your mods, to include all of your save games.

One thing though if you tried updating mods to the current version of the game you have to go in and manually revert all your mods to the version of the mod that worked with the version of the game you've rolled back to. If this is the case you'll probably have lost your saved games as I did when I had to go through reverting many of my mods. Though you will be able to start a new campaign and play it for weeks or months without worrying about updates or mods until you're ready to update.
 
Last edited:
For real? Can I actually do that?
The only thing I know that is close to revert is to select the "beta branch" from the steam, and here you have a list of game versions. But I can only find 1.4, 1.3, etc and 1.4 before hotfix is not listed.
That's because 1.4 is not set in stone yet, thus: you can't revert back to pre-hotfix, but you can choose any version prior to that.
 
If only taleworlds put more money on programmers instead of shills...

The point of the argument is these tiny patches ultimately do nothing or make the game worse. The vast majority of these mini patches are fixing patches that were supposed to fix a patch... Perhaps push your rare crashes to 1.5 rather than ghost patching something 20 times..

Is this the genuine 50 cent army? If so, I salute your dedication .
 


  • Fixed a rare crash on the campaign map regarding village items.
  • Fixed a crash related to newly spawned caravans.
  • Fixed a crash that occurred when trying to talk with a companion while inside hideouts.
  • Fixed an issue with missing dialogues for supporting a kingdom in the main storyline after loading which blocked progression.
  • Fixed a client crash on crowded servers when the amount of created weapons in the environment exceeded a certain threshold.
That is what was written, much more was changed.
 
Back
Top Bottom