When is TWs actually going to add a major feature?

Users who are viewing this thread

So it has been over a year in EA since TW began their tinkering with this game, which has mainly consisted of fixes for bugs introduced and various minor adjustments. What workshops are more profitable this go round lol? Seriously, there are dozens of mods with better content than this team has managed to put out in over a year. Want to stash items in your castle? Here's another menu page; some of the laziest ham fisted crap I have ever seen in gaming.
 
Last edited:
Exactly what counts as a major feature is subjective.

Some might consider rebellions to be a major feature, some might not.

What would you count as a major feature?
 
Had to rewrite the thread, as someone informed me that the end of battle control is a bug and not intended design.

Exactly what counts as a major feature is subjective.

Some might consider rebellions to be a major feature, some might not.

What would you count as a major feature?

Go look at the top mods for the game for starters, like succession, custom troops, or diplomacy options. I would consider something like feasts a major edition instead of one new helmet, 30 crash fixes, and a few scenes which look great: But THERE'S NOTHING TO DO IN THEM, they could add 1,000 scenes and it would make no difference.

There's very little to do in this game. The town upgrades are boring and bland, castles are not worth owning and there's no reason for the player to enter the thrown room. Completely pointless. They have done nothing to remedy this in over a year...

I invite people to look at any of the top Warband mods on steam. This game has a major lack of content.

Back to the stash menu page:

When you give a player another menu page instead of a chest to store items, it gives the player no connection to his castle or town thrown room. Add up enough little things like this and you have a very bland game. Besides fighting battles there is zero to do. Viking Conquest is much better in this regard? Why is that?

Can someone explain why Viking Conquest is a better game? If Bannerlord had not ben worked on for 8 years I probably would not say much, but God this game frustrates me to no end.
 
Last edited:
Costum (map position specific) battle scenes are in the works. Apart from that I don't expect much more "major" features until the game is released. Remember the statements from Duh about the gamedevelopement and direction. As far TW is concerned the game is close to being finished. There is just some fixing and scene making to do.
 
Costum (map position specific) battle scenes are in the works. Apart from that I don't expect much more "major" features until the game is released. Remember the statements from Duh about the gamedevelopement and direction. As far TW is concerned the game is close to being finished. There is just some fixing and scene making to do.
If they actually release the game in this state I don't know if I should applaud them for their sheer audacity or cry because that is just sad
 
For me, the most major of the features so-far is rebellions, which is of course not enough.

It amazes me how TW has managed not to touch any of the dialogues since the release.

Never mind.
 
For me, the most major of the features so-far is rebellions, which is of course not enough.

It amazes me how TW has managed not to touch any of the dialogues since the release.

Never mind.
I find it funny actually.

"Can I ask a quick question?" Has been sitting there for a year and absolutely nothing has happened. What is the question?
Be happy that then the modders can take over. That's how I see things now.
Perhaps but I'll probably be sad if companies actually think stuff like this is a solid game.
 
Perhaps but I'll probably be sad if companies actually think stuff like this is a solid game.

I wouldn't call the game "solid" in its current state, but there are far far more instable / unfinished games out there.
At face value the game isn't bad. Quite the opposite. It is only a desaster comparing it to Warband and what was promised in the devlogs before EA.
 
Perhaps but I'll probably be sad if companies actually think stuff like this is a solid game.
Same.

I also hate modding in games in general.

It promotes laziness in the company, and makes the playerbase always expect stuff from mods.

The game should be complete in itself. Nothing to add, nothing to remove.
 
So it has been over a year in EA since TW began their tinkering with this game, which has mainly consisted of fixes for bugs introduced and various minor adjustments. What workshops are more profitable this go round lol? Seriously, there are dozens of mods with better content than this team has managed to put out in over a year. Want to stash items in your castle? Here's another menu page; some of the laziest ham fisted crap I have ever seen in gaming.
BABAHAHAHA

heres another menu.
What a poorly designed game.

Also no. They wont be adding anything. They want to balance the game and 'polish' it (scenes etc.)

Thats the extent of the game. A barebones sandbox with an intro video and some quests. Bannerlord will not be more - mark my words.
 
For me, the most major of the features so-far is rebellions, which is of course not enough.

It amazes me how TW has managed not to touch any of the dialogues since the release.

Never mind.

Rebellion is poorly thought out. The player can capture a town without forming a kingdom. This then gives complete immunity from encroachment. Taken to the extreme, a player could slowly capture the whole of Calradia without ever having to defend.

A more complete version would include more consequences. For e.g on capturing a town, the player could be confronted by representatives from the neighbouring kingdoms along the lines of "Hey that's a nice town you have there. A pity if someone were to ransack it".Or "Thanks for liberating MY town. I'd like to have it back."

And refusal will naturally lead to war. That'd force the player to either sell the town, give it up, join them or go to war.
 
Hopefully we'll get the battle map system in 1.6, I have a feeling there might be more stuff coming. Other than that I feel as though it'll be DLC where we get really major stuff.
 
Hopefully we'll get the battle map system in 1.6, I have a feeling there might be more stuff coming. Other than that I feel as though it'll be DLC where we get really major stuff.
I'm not giving TW another cent. I'm reserving my Bannerlord cash to support modders that actually care about game design. TW tricked gamers into basically funding Armagan's academic desire to keep exploring Agent-oriented Programming. If you look at Bannerlord through these lenses it starts making sense why they want everything in the game to be automated and reduce player agency even though this, well you know, is a single-player game.
 
Last edited:
Rebellion is poorly thought out. The player can capture a town without forming a kingdom. This then gives complete immunity from encroachment. Taken to the extreme, a player could slowly capture the whole of Calradia without ever having to defend.

A more complete version would include more consequences. For e.g on capturing a town, the player could be confronted by representatives from the neighbouring kingdoms along the lines of "Hey that's a nice town you have there. A pity if someone were to ransack it".Or "Thanks for liberating MY town. I'd like to have it back."

And refusal will naturally lead to war. That'd force the player to either sell the town, give it up, join them or go to war.

Indeed, this essentially breaks the entire game. People seem to forget this while running around enjoying the New Norman helms which has already been done by a modder with much better models.
 
I'm not giving TW another cent. I'm reserving my Bannerlord cash to support modders that actually care about game design. TW tricked gamers into basically funding Armagan's academic desire to keep exploring Agent-oriented Programming. If you look at Bannerlord though these lenses it starts making sense why they want everything in the game to be automated and reduce player agency even though this, well you know, is a single-player game.
What this paradigm has something to do with actual game design ? Enlight my lense because I'm not sure I got it.
 
The fact that lords don't even have proper dialogue, tells me all I need to know about this game and it development. Steam really needs to add a set amount of time or something before you can make a review. The game is at a very positive review score and it's complete bullcrap. 8 years of development and 1 year in EA and it can barely hold a candle to Viking Conquest or 1257 AD. I'm sure many of you have done so but look at old devblogs and videos to see how many things were scrapped or things they simply lied about.

I used to love Taleworlds because they created one of my favorite games yet now I could care less if they had to close down shop. Not even sure if I believe the Original Mount and Blade was actually made by husband and wife team. Seems like lie to sell more copies at the time.
 
What this paradigm has something to do with actual game design ? Enlight my lense because I'm not sure I got it.
TW seems to be more interested in making the simulation aspect of Bannerlord successful rather than making it a rewarding gaming experience for the players.

In Bannerlord, AI agents are considered on the same level as the player. Time and time again TW devs have declined feature suggestions because of the impact it would have on the AI agents. Everything the player can do, the agents must be able to do as well. Or from a different perspective, the player is limited by what can be coded for the AI agents. If this does not raise all sorts of warnings that Bannerlord is a game in name only, I don't know what to tell you. A game is ALL about the players. Everything exists to create a cool experience for the players.

A good example is the new 1.5.10 "feature" of adding stances to your clan's parties. What had been asked for a very long time is to allow the player to have control over what our clan parties can do. TW response is to just allow the player to slightly influence the AI agents priorities. Allowing the player to tell its clan parties to siege castle A while we ourselves siege castle B, effectively splitting the ability of the defenders to protect themselves, would have been super easy to do code-wise (I know this for a fact, by the way) and it would have added a great vehicle of agency and tactical value for the player. Did TW do that? No, because this level of sophisticated coordination is not something that the AI agents would also be able to do.

Another good example that really shows TW philosophy is the Skill Perks. The thing is riddled with completely useless perk effects for the Player! In a freaking single-player game!!

Third example and then I'll shut up. The economy. For those that have been here since the beginning of EA, work into Bannerlord's economy consumed the first several months of development. But why waste all that effort on it though? It is a simulation that is almost completely opaque to the player. Worse, the player can barely influence it because, if options to do so existed, they would also have to be available to the AI agents, and balancing that would be a nightmare, never mind that it would make the game a better game and its economy vastly more interesting for the player.

Bannerlord is mostly a great demo of how Agent-oriented Programming can create really sophisticated (from a software perspective) simulations where you have mostly independent software agents interacting with each other to work towards a common goal. It is objectively a bad computer game. Does that mean you can't have fun with it? Absolutely not, I have had at least 20+ hours of true fun with it. The problem is I have "played" 100+ hours of it trying to have fun and I would really like to have those hours back.

Edit: The strong and negative sentiment in my words is not directed at you @SOku , apologies if it reads that way.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom