***Community Feedback ROADMAP - What Taleworlds still needs to fix!***

Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?

  • Yes

    Votes: 387 86.6%
  • No

    Votes: 60 13.4%

  • Total voters
    447

Users who are viewing this thread

The engineering-minded people always go for automation even when it's unreasonable.
71b.jpg


I do think that random companions might end up turning out alright with some fleshing out myself, and potentially make for some memorable experiences. I agree that it would be more difficult and might not be worth the effort.

Honest question since you appear to be amongst the most knowledgable on this forum: since they already have some groundwork for creating unique companions and granting them reactions to specific events, would adding unique quests dependent on traits and culture (or rng) be more work than creating unique companions with specific quests?
I am not MadVader and I am definitely not as knowledgeable on game design as he is, but I do have a fair bit of coding experience and I am one of the dangerous engineers who like automation so... I can say that adding the quests/events themselves would not be more difficult. Adding them in a way that is meaningful and always makes sense to the players probably would. And there is an intrinsic difficulty in the fact that Jeremus will always be Jeremus, and be meaningful and memorable and unique through multiple playthroughs. Random bot n.162 might become someone you remember about if they manage to get automated events right, if there's enough of those events programmed in to leave an impact, if those events actually happen in your game and, depending on the events/traits/culture, if they happen in the right way to not break immersion. That's a lot of ifs and, given the quality of coding/bug management that we have seen from TW so far, I wouldn't bet my money on that happening.
 
If they are so hellbent on having random companions because of the death system then why did they waste all the time designing any of the clan members? I think they can see how much more memorable they are compared to companions so far with one's like Calrog.

I think they can make it work but in my opinion they should really ramp up the personality traits so they stand out. Nothing nuanced or slight, have them be really bloodthirsty or so merciful they are pretty much a nun.
 
I do think that random companions might end up turning out alright with some fleshing out myself, and potentially make for some memorable experiences. I agree that it would be more difficult and might not be worth the effort.


I am not MadVader and I am definitely not as knowledgeable on game design as he is, but I do have a fair bit of coding experience and I am one of the dangerous engineers who like automation so... I can say that adding the quests/events themselves would not be more difficult. Adding them in a way that is meaningful and always makes sense to the players probably would. And there is an intrinsic difficulty in the fact that Jeremus will always be Jeremus, and be meaningful and memorable and unique through multiple playthroughs. Random bot n.162 might become someone you remember about if they manage to get automated events right, if there's enough of those events programmed in to leave an impact, if those events actually happen in your game and, depending on the events/traits/culture, if they happen in the right way to not break immersion. That's a lot of ifs and, given the quality of coding/bug management that we have seen from TW so far, I wouldn't bet my money on that happening.

Any insight is welcome, I'm glad you answered!

I suppose you put the finger on the most slippery slope there... since it appears to be something they currently struggle with, that being meaningful implementation. Also making it complete but one problem at a time, eh? :smile:

It saddens me though, because it really feels like it wouldn't take much to make compelling characters (or at the very least interesting ones) when you already have a trait system in place. Granted, to make those traits work, some of the details currently missing in Bannerlord would really help (like the ability to execute prisoners of war), which would please cruel and battanian companions f.e. A simple trigger, that could bring interesting choices and consequences, y'know?

I would argue that auto-generated companions could quickly gain their place in a player's heart, if the game allows it... which it currently doesn't. Like, as much as I want some unique companions as well, I feel like they wouldn't be well exploited by the game anyway. If anything, I'm afraid they would just feel like missed opportunities.

Take Derthert, he has a pretty interesting character, but the game doesn't use that fact in any way... like at all beyond the lore. :/

Edit: How could I forget Radagos! Well, you might say that beyond the starting quest he really doesn't do much or influence anything at all, he's just a slightly more useful soldier until he eventually dies. What do you think?
 
Honest question since you appear to be amongst the most knowledgable on this forum: since they already have some groundwork for creating unique companions and granting them reactions to specific events, would adding unique quests dependent on traits and culture (or rng) be more work than creating unique companions with specific quests?
Just to add to what Eddie said, quest work depends on the quest itself, not if it's unique or repeatable.
Unique companion-specific quests are the real deal, as they tell us a unique story. (but are only used once per game; see also ME2 loyalty missions for a great example of storytelling)
Random companion quests dependent on traits or whatever have less of an impact, but can be reused between different companions with the same trait. The weight of the narrative about the companion is on the player's mind, which will somehow fill in the blanks to make your robotic companion appear more human.
In any case, I don't see TW adding any kind of companion quests, and they shouldn't, The prisoner rescue quest, their latest attempt, shows us they are not very good at this.
 
Any insight is welcome, I'm glad you answered!

I suppose you put the finger on the most slippery slope there... since it appears to be something they currently struggle with, that being meaningful implementation. Also making it complete but one problem at a time, eh? :smile:

It saddens me though, because it really feels like it wouldn't take much to make compelling characters (or at the very least interesting ones) when you already have a trait system in place. Granted, to make those traits work, some of the details currently missing in Bannerlord would really help (like the ability to execute prisoners of war), which would please cruel and battanian companions f.e. A simple trigger, that could bring interesting choices and consequences, y'know?

I would argue that auto-generated companions could quickly gain their place in a player's heart, if the game allows it... which it currently doesn't. Like, as much as I want some unique companions as well, I feel like they wouldn't be well exploited by the game anyway. If anything, I'm afraid they would just feel like missed opportunities.

Take Derthert, he has a pretty interesting character, but the game doesn't use that fact in any way... like at all beyond the lore. :/

Edit: How could I forget Radagos! Well, you might say that beyond the starting quest he really doesn't do much or influence anything at all, he's just a slightly more useful soldier until he eventually dies. What do you think?

I think that the bottom line is, right now Bannerlord still does not have a soul, even aside from the specific issue of companions. Hopefully they will figure that out given enough time. We can but wait and hope for the best.
 
Just as a small update, I have written a portion of the reply, which works by itself so I may share it before getting to the rest of the matter. However, because it touches on a broad range of subjects, I do want to run it by some other folks and make sure I'm not overstepping before posting it.

I don't think that companions are randomly generated by the way. Afaik they are based on templates that can be reused across generations - but at least the first iteration should be somewhat equivalent to a "unique" character from what I understand. I am not too familiar with the system, so take it with a grain of salt.
 
Just to add to what Eddie said, quest work depends on the quest itself, not if it's unique or repeatable.
Unique companion-specific quests are the real deal, as they tell us a unique story. (but are only used once per game; see also ME2 loyalty missions for a great example of storytelling)
Random companion quests dependent on traits or whatever have less of an impact, but can be reused between different companions with the same trait. The weight of the narrative about the companion is on the player's mind, which will somehow fill in the blanks to make your robotic companion appear more human.
In any case, I don't see TW adding any kind of companion quests, and they shouldn't, The prisoner rescue quest, their latest attempt, shows us they are not very good at this.

Oh yes, I completely understand that and agree. I have never played Mass Effect though, but from what you are saying I wouldn't be surprised if there were YouTube videos discussing what the game did right with storytelling, so I'll give them a watch! It appears it will come handy discussing Bannerlord.

Of course they will never be as good as companions with unique backgrounds, dialogues and reactions, but as you state the blanks are to be filled by the player's mind, so giving it a hand can only prove beneficial I'd imagine! Since they will always be present, getting them to feel human will only improve the player's immersion!

I reluctantly have to agree with your closing statement... which is truly a shame. Things as simple as dealing with a small group of bandits wanting to collect a debt from a companion would do wonders.

I think that the bottom line is, right now Bannerlord still does not have a soul, even aside from the specific issue of companions. Hopefully they will figure that out given enough time. We can but wait and hope for the best.
You are right about the "soul" issue... I must say though, that more interesting companions is a must-have shard of the Mount&Blade soul, especially in Bannerlord where we are supposed to be able to make a legacy. I mean, for example, going full cruel lord is easy because it is lucrative and lacks consequences, one of which could be companions having a chance to betray the player, taking some of his troops and joining an enemy or laying an ambush (close quarter fight in the streets of a settlement for example) before taking him (if they win) to an enemy stronghold where he would me made prisonner... or be executed.

It's all small steps, they sound so simple I just can't imagine them messing them up! I'll temper my expectations though, for obvious reasons.

Just as a small update, I have written a portion of the reply, which works by itself so I may share it before getting to the rest of the matter. However, because it touches on a broad range of subjects, I do want to run it by some other folks and make sure I'm not overstepping before posting it.

I don't think that companions are randomly generated by the way. Afaik they are based on templates that can be reused across generations - but at least the first iteration should be somewhat equivalent to a "unique" character from what I understand. I am not too familiar with the system, so take it with a grain of salt.
Good to know, I am sure I'm speaking for everyone when I say I can't wait to read it!
 
I tried to search for custom troops in the original post, but could not find any mention of it. Is that not also a feature the community wants?
I definitely agree it's a feature the community wants, and it's something I would like too.

But I think you can agree: Taleworlds, while they did make a lot of money selling Bannerlord to us all, doesn't have unlimited time or resources, and they aren't our genies. They can't give us everything we all want. Nor are they obligated to.

But they can and should give us what they gave us a reason to believe Bannerlord would be when we bought it. And that makes doing that their logical first priority.

So I wrote the OP with that in mind. If there was a direct or implicit impression given by TW that a functioning, useful feature would be in an M&B sequel, it goes in Category 1, 2, or 3.

The rest falls into Category 4 (features which taleworlds would like to have) and 5 (features the community would like to have). If I had written down everything that the community would like to be in the game, then this post would be eight times as long; it's already a wall of text as it is. That would distract from the aim of the post, which is to establish core priorities, and avoid confusion and wasted effort. I even left out features I'd personally like to see, like the ability to be an assassin yourself, naval travel, and ambushes, to avoid cluttering up the list.

If I made a mistake and Taleworlds actually did say at some point that bannerlord would have custom troop trees then i'll put it in the OP.
 
Just as a small update, I have written a portion of the reply, which works by itself so I may share it before getting to the rest of the matter. However, because it touches on a broad range of subjects, I do want to run it by some other folks and make sure I'm not overstepping before posting it.

I don't think that companions are randomly generated by the way. Afaik they are based on templates that can be reused across generations - but at least the first iteration should be somewhat equivalent to a "unique" character from what I understand. I am not too familiar with the system, so take it with a grain of salt.
That's actually what we mean by "randomly generated." If you know the suffix, you know exactly what sort of character it is, with a few exceptions. The Scholar, for example, can be either doctor or engineer, Aserai or Imperial. But the given names and faces change.

And their stories are unique per playthrough; once you've read them, the next companion generated from the same template will have an abbreviated version, without much detail. Sometimes it is a little different but it should probably be made clearer that it isn't just a recycled and stripped down version of the first.
 
As someone who spent more hours playing PoP than I care to admit... Bannerlord has nowhere near the vision that was in PoP. Or if it's there, we don't see it, which as far as we are concerned is the same. And that is honestly infuriating, because as amazing as modders can be a professional company shouldn't be struggling so much with making a good product when they had foundations as amazing as Warband to build upon.

Bannerlord itself right now feels more like a collection of mashed up ideas as you say, than anything else. If there was a vision more people would be happy with the game. Outrage from players comes from a (probably misguided, since raging clearly does not help with making a good game) attempt to fix it. As I am sure you know. Just food for thought, I honestly don't think that you personally are really in the position to do anything about it.

Edit: and honestly, what bothers me the most is that there are huge problems with the core gameplay that are not being addressed, or even acknowledged. Mounted units can not hit troops on foot consistently. Collisions between units are wonky. The sense of progression is hit and miss, between the fact that armors are only mildly relevant and the leveling progression (plus the fact that unit hitpoints don't really change between low level units and high level units). Companions feel like placeholders (and honestly they kind of are). After release I was one of the most vocal proponents of "let them work, they will fix things eventually". Now I am like... will they though? I still don't think that raging and absolute negativity in the forum are going to help, but I can definitely understand the frustration.
Exactly. The great thing about warband was that all features weren't just features. They were core mechanics that interlocked with each other. A tournament wasn't just a way to flex your combat skills and earn a bit of money. You also got renown, a relationship bonus to the city, an invitation to court (which is important for non noble characters) and you could gift the honor of your victory to one of the ladies improving the relationship / romance.

As you see tournaments arent just a loose feature they are connected to lots and lots of other mechanics making them an integral part of the game.

In bannerlord on the other hand we have smithing...

Edit: @Op: great post by the way. I agree with almost everything.
 
As you see tournaments arent just a loose feature they are connected to lots and lots of other mechanics making them an integral part of the game.
I completely forget about the interlocking aspect of tournaments, now the current system seems even more basic. My minimal hope for tournaments that s a tier system, that you have to earn the right to join higher tier tournaments, witch have higher rewards and higher betting limits
 
Preamble

I feel that it is important to clarify a couple of things before going on to responding to the OP. Fırst, this is my personal take on the topic (and some related matters). It isn't a company statement and this will not provide you with a list of final product specifications. I will also primarily focus on things that I have some knowledge of (the single player campaign). Finally, I may note if I find a particular feature more or less necessary or likely alongside some thoughts on the why, but that does not mean it is confirmed or, conversely, excluded / rejected.

To add unto that, I have been with this community for over a decade, coming in as a player, continuing as a modder, then a modding and global moderator and now a developer. That is to say - I am aware of at least some of the realities on both sides and hold both dear.

With that out of the way... I will split the reply into 2 segments. The first will engage with some of the more abstract ideas & sentiments while the second will try to go over at least some of the listed features. That way, people can pick and choose what they want to sift through. :iamamoron:

Ideas & Sentiments

When Taleworlds started the Early Access, they said they would use community feedback to bring the game to the level that [they and] the community expects, and they aimed to release in a year. But that's not quite happening. A year has passed, but the game is nowhere near finished. Things the community has complained about for a long time still aren't fixed, while other areas of the game receive development nobody asked for.
I agree that there are plenty of things that can be done to further improve the game. However, working alongside the community to achieve a desirable level of quality does not - to me - mean that a company needs to follow each and every community request.

To begin with, there is no one community nor is there one specific opinion about what features there should be, how they should work in detail and which of them are of what urgency / value. (To give an example, the latter is readily observable in any patch that is perceived to tilt more towards SP or MP content than it "should".)

Naturally, that does not mean that broader trends can't be observed or used. But even at that level, there can obviously be quite distinct, even conflicting opinions across different groups of players. So, to cut a long story short, it is necessary for any developer to make choices in regards to what feedback they can and want to use. Not all ideas are realizable and not all ideas are in harmony.

This is where a central vision comes into play. Which, to me, describes the abstract principles & preferences of a lead developer which guide more specific decisions (f.e. we try to avoid mechanics that purely or primarily require real time for an ingame benefit). So a vision is not an exhaustive feature list or a detailed description of a final product. And the level of detail can vary wildly between vision statements. As MV noted elsewhere
You could describe a vision broadly like "a sandbox mass battle RPG", but there are always personal preferences whether particular features belong in that kind of game.
Now, I do think that the product descriptions of Bannerlord go into a fair bit more detail than that. I also believe that most of us have some shared understanding of the core bits of what a Mount & Blade game offers - and that Bannerlord covers them to a degree that makes it recognizably Mount & Blade.

It seems like Taleworlds devs each follow their own path, instead of working together following a unified plan based on community expectations. I hope I'm wrong, but that's the impression we get.
So, to clarify - No, developers don't just all do their own thing. Armagan deeply cares about the project and tends to be involved, on some level, with the vast majority of development. Similarly, community feedback is taken into account, but it informs rather than makes decisions. (Which is, of course, not just down to vision, but also mundane challenges - sometimes an idea that sounded good on paper can't be made to work or has to be pushed back or even dropped due to other priorities.) You may not like or agree with all of the decisions being made and not all of them may necessarily turn out to be the right or best ones. But they must be made - and are made, from what I can tell, with the desire to create a better game.

I feel that part of the frustration comes from a lack of understanding / certainty about community feedback. So I will try to shine some light on the processes. To begin with, we gain and process information from players in a variety of ways. The most straight forward ones are probably our dump-uploader and technical support section. Anything that comes in through these avenues has a very high probability to be investigated. Naturally, it isn't just blind activity either - we try to prioritize problems along the lines of prominence, so that anything that impacts many players is resolved as soon as possible. I think this is particularly evident during the first few months of the Early Access where many patches focused on stabilizing the game. I know there are posts that don't much care for bug fixes or performance improvements, but to me, it was and is the right call to make sure that as many people as possible are able to play the game that they purchased.

The next most apparent avenue is the beta branch, which allows for a closer collaboration between developers and the community - and has verifiably led to good feature adjustments (the most recent example that comes to mind for me is the pillaging feature). Patches in general are, of course, always an opportunity for constructive discussion and so are the releases of our priority statements (where I believe a fair few questions are answered when players post them). Less overt, but also important, are things like the closed (and open) tests that are conducted with members of the multiplayer community as well as our direct lines of discussion with community volunteers or, for instance, the closed testing and workshops we did with some of our modders ahead of the release of the modding tools.

Beyond that, both individual developers (of whom not everyone may feel comfortable posting) as well as the community staff read through and take notes from our various community platforms and other outlets. This is processed both in unstructured, individual discussions as well as regular, dedicated meetings where we go over suggestions. Similarly, what we observe in the community discussions informs our internal prioritization as well. Which brings us to

TW's community managers can rarely confirm/deny any future information, further indicating no long-term plan. We have the "Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine," but it only seems to list short-term goals - not what Bannerlord is supposed to look like when it's done. This may explain the 8 years of development, and delayed release. If 90 people all work with different goals in mind, you get confusion and work going to waste, causing delays.

So: Taleworlds needs a long-term roadmap that states how Bannerlord should look when it's finished. And yet, despite - many - requests, there still isn't one.

The statements and video updates share a significant portion of the (short and long term) works that are actively in progress and have a reasonable degree of confidence that changes made to them during development won't betray the expectations that they generate. To me, this is a healthier approach than oversharing in a way that risks false expectations and thereby increases the very frustrations that are present in this thread (and the OP).

We most assuredly do have a vast backlog of tasks, but, for me, providing a public "final feature list" while the game is still heavily in development seems like it would either be misleading or constrain our ability to make adjustments. The current method allows us to share some information while retaining the agility to reevaluate our priorities as content is shared and new issues and feedback come up.

At the end of the day, it is a compromise between competing interests. Obviously, I understand that players want to know more. Especially when they care about a product. I also think that there has been progress in that regard. At the beginning of EA we had neither statements, nor video updates. These were introduced over time. Which I think is fair, because it is important to find the right balance between sharing information and prematurely building expectations - and that is a learning process.

Personally, I believe an opportunity for improvement could be slightly more elaborate statements. I know that a few players were irritated that we retained some prior bulletin points as we updated the SP statement. Of course, that is a necessity if the work on them continues - but it may be more engaging if we elaborated more on the status of the work. For instance, the Lord's Hall Fight has been with us for a while. At the end of December, we showcased the mission in a video update after we were reasonably happy with the prototype. Since then, we have been working on creating all the necessary scenes for other locations, hooking up the different stages within the campaign context (assault first, LH fight after), testing it, fixing various code and scene related problems and now we are looking at improving the AI to better handle the close-quarter context. So, very different stages of development - but still an ongoing work.

But keep in mind that we're just customers, and Taleworlds is just a company (one that, to be fair, made millions of dollars by hyping up this Early Access). They don't have unlimited resources. Their only obligation is to deliver what they gave people reason to believe Bannerlord would be when they advertised it; the customer has a right to what they paid for, but not to their wildest dreams. So, I have limited community suggestions in this post to only things within the established scope of Bannerlord. Even then it makes for a very long list!

This is a difficult topic to discuss, because, of course, I agree that one should share and advertise what is in the game. (Just see the prior segment.) I also don’t know the detailed history given that I started working with the campaign in the Spring of 2019. So the best I can do is share some of my personal thoughts on the matter.

I do not believe that any of these statements were made with malicious intent. To me, it seems likely that TaleWorlds was simply trying to engage their community as they were developing the game. Could they have been more careful with what they were sharing? Probably. But then, it is incredibly difficult to project what will happen over the course of 8-10 years, so the only guarantee would be not to share. Could they have used more careful language? Probably. But then, I'm pretty sure that @Terco_Viejo is already at risk to suffer a stroke from all the mights, mays and maybes that I throw his way. And let's be honest, even if every sentence was labelled with a "Work in Progress / Subject to Change'' disclaimer (which probably most blogs have at least on their screenshots), it still builds expectations. And it's not really what this is about I think.

You and many other people care about the game and want to see it be the best that it can be. And many of the things listed in this topic are well liked by a number of folks. But there is no guarantee that I can give you that they will be in the base game in the way they were described some years ago - or at all. It is perfectly understandable that that is frustrating to you.

But, at the same time, I do want to point out that the development is ongoing. That is to say that some of these points as well as features & content not mentioned here may yet be included in the game. To me, our priority must, however, be with properly finalizing the features that are already in the game - while we also work on introducing new content.

... I spent most of Sunday on this and I need to get some other things done. So, for now, I will cut off here and try to find more time to discuss some of the individual feature / content bits in the future.
 
That was a lengthy disclaimer, a bit unnecessary since we already know and love Duh. I can't wait for the non-legal part, and we should appreciate the personal time Duh will take to write it down. (as opposed to Community Managers who are supposed to do this as part of their job)
We found out there's some progress with the keep siege battles and that the bots are being too stupid in confined spaces (see also: prisoner rescue quest). It's a process, just like Kafka's. :mrgreen:
 
Back
Top Bottom