That's a very easy claim to make. I too can "easily" cite all the things that:
1. Showed up in dev diaries and have disappeared since then
2. List all the things Warband had that Bannerlord doesn't have (remember we're only here because of how well-received Warband was)
3. List all the things in neither category that have been summarily rejected for vague reasons such as "too complex" or "doesn't fit our vision".
1. Besides the village = castle upgrade thingy and gang system which haven't worked out because things happen in development, I honestly don't remember anything else that significant that is missing... I also remember a post about that and was not impressed, it was very little things and it brought up repetitive points.
2. We're here because of Warband mods as well, and DLCs, not because of Warband vanilla. If the game did not have modding potential it would in no way be as popular as it is now. And the problem we are facing is that we are currently judging Bannerlord vanilla based on experience with years worth of Warband mods + DLCs. And Bannerlord vanilla is 10x times better than Warband vanilla was, without taking graphics into account. Unless you don't count sieges with 1000 men with siege towers, flamey projectiles, battering ram and tons of ladders an improvement from the one single ramp we had and 150 troops in the unmodded Warband experience... (and yes sieges are not yet working as intended, it's being worked on, but it's already way better). And we'll be getting elephant DLCs, so see, game will be awesome.
Also this is not Warband 2, and I am totally fine with the tavern drunkard, bandits attacking you on the street at night in an annoying overrepetitive event and companion complaints missing from the game. Warband had its fair share of flaws.
3. That's the company's right to decide upon these things and shouldn't be seen as an issue. Many times they have completely reasonable motives for which they are rejecting certain ideas, because certain ideas are just not good in the grand scheme of things. I know many people wanted more micro management and to tell their parties "Attack this settlement" for example, but honestly the game is so easy already that this would be so easy to abuse, and it's just better they didn't imo. It's an unpopular opinion but it is what it is. Instead they implement a simpler approach (aggressive - defensive state). Also, if players and devs strongly agree a certain feature would be good, it's usually brought up multiple times to the management to see if they decide in favor of it, so the effort is there.
4. Siege AI has been improved, it just needs more work but it's slowly getting there. Devs stated long ago that the issue is a difficult one and it will take time to solve, so I don't see the problem here. It's not like we're not getting good siege AI eventually.
About the feedback, besides the UI (MRay) and mexxico: Dejan, Duh and Marda are others I have seen plenty of active. You also have to consider that the developers are non-english speakers and it's just less likely for them to engage with the english community, it is what it is. In a perfect world we would all be americans and this would bring peace and prosperity to us all (lol.).
And all in all my claim was simply that it's not true that they're not listening to feedback, and there is plenty of evidence in dev - player discussions as well as in the patch notes. If the 4-5+ examples that I gave aren't enough proof for that, then I guess it is ok if you don't believe me. To each his own
I mean, just yesterday this was posted:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/on-crafting-orders.443899/#post-9708765 ... a post asking for feedback on a feature. Just a recent example. They're trying aren't they?
