Maybe because a number of "anti-snowballing" systems are completely dumb and gamey ? There were numerous suggestions on how to fix the snowballing in a more immersive way, that were ignored. Can't blame people for not liking bad fixes.I just can’t wait for much of the “anti-snowballing” changes to be undone because the second string of players complain about the “current” game, not understanding where it was, and then we can go full circle and after 2 years of EA, we can right back to the beginning
The entire "losing a part of your troops if you accomplish an action" already exists for joining a besieged settlement. It's not like hooking it to the retreat decision would consume any significant amount of time, please.Yes, it should be fixed.
But it is such a non-issue, that other, much more pressing issues take precedence. And there's *a lot* of far more pressing issues that need to be fixed. So get in line and patiently wait for a fix for this particular thing.
Remember, again, that a fix for this non-issue always means that something else will have to wait longer. It's always a trade off, and almost never a case of "we have some free time, so we'll fix this".
No, it's just stupid.While I agree that this should be "fixed" in some way he still has a point. Would be different if this wasn´t a singleplayer game.
This is a completely idiotic design though. They should instead compensate with "trainer" ability like in M&B, that would be both simpler and more immersive (compared to having seas of bandits everywhere).I recently learned on these forums that there wont be Manhunter parties or other form of bandit control because the AI needs this amount of bandits in order to level its troops.
The implementation was a bit sketchy, but the fundamental concept of "legitimacy" is a pretty solid idea. Having to "farm" it in advance is also, actually, a good approach. It should be improved, but it would make more logical & immersive to have someone who is already recognized as having some sort of claim to being a faction leader being accepted (even if begrudgingly) as a "world player" than any kind of upstart that just has a few dozens of mercenaries.Don't really think right to rule (as it was implemented in WB, at least) is the right system, though - RtR was something you could farm up in advance, if you cared to, and bypass the system entirely. Something as simple as making the AI see your faction's weakness (one to few clans, etc) as easy territory and refusing peace so long as they think they can take it (eg, not currently busy with a bunch of other wars) might be plenty.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."the only real insight (if you can call it that) we have is their glassdoor reviews, of which the bad reviews consistently paint a portrait of TW being horrendously unorganized leading to messy and slow development. Obviously you've got to take glassdoor with a grain of salt, but it's all we really have in terms of an inside look, and the consistency of the bad reviews bringing up disorganization does speak to it being a real problem.
I have, and NMS is the benchmark of games that were released bad and then were fixed and turned good. And it did all that in half the time BL has been in development and with a team eight times smaller.Did it though? Have you played it after that video came out or are you just going off the video?
I wouldn't mind their vision over anything if they at least could implement it in a reasonable timeframe.What's the point, they will acknowledge it but nothing will ever come from it, there's been 2 years of dissatisfaction from fans and still we're ignored because it's their vision over anything and they won't budge
I concur.Did item prices drop to earth level?
Will armor ever work as it should?
This are the main points the community wants to see fixed.