There has been no direct statement either way on any of the features in the OP, except where mentioned in the OP; and as for lord duels, they've said it's "not currently planned" but even then haven't explicitly ruled that out.
False. Their terrain calculation is problematic at the moment. It's not related to how many scenes you have. i.e. even if you are slightly close to a village, you spawn inside the village no matter what. Because your terrain type automatically becomes "village" even though it's not. They first have to fix that stupid behaviour and then add more and they should have to add more randomness inside the maps which will lead team to change all maps again - to make it more "dynamic" = extra development/time cost
It makes sense to do that in this stage of development if there is a demand for it. You wouldn't say "Oh lets make it procedural" after 2 years, when you have too many premade scenes on your hand. Now that - that would be a waste of resource.
That can be fixed within the existing system by just being a bit more specific.
If you have "too many premade scenes on hand" you aren't going to need randomly generated ones though. The stage of development it would have made sense to implement such a system from scratch would have been pre-early access, not now that they have a system that already works well enough (even if it's flawed) and can work a lot better with even 10 or 20 more field battle scenes.
Yes progress has been very slow but scrapping the existing scenes and redoing the terrain system is going to make it actually slower (as well as delaying the gameplay features everyone wants).
You realistically never can reach a number big enough to "not need" more maps. What was meant was "you put too many hours into making lots of maps to waste them".
The choice was completely idiotic (see above why), and yes it should have been different during pre-early access.
This was just an example and as you can see, even for `fixing` that you need development effort.
Even with 20 scenes, it will be dull and boring. As Akka stated, this is not a matter of how many maps you have. It will always give you the same feeling as you are playing Custom Battle with campaign units. It's, in essence, exactly what it is.
Based on this I'm seeing that you are not very familiar with Game Development or Software Engineering. To simply put;
And yet, less so than the effort that would be required from the coders to build an entirely new system from scratch.
That doesn't mean there isn't overlap. Or do you really think that the engine programmers are currently sitting around doing nothing?
Of course its less effort to create more maps compared to have a dynamic system. Its also less effort not to create anything at all and keeping the state in this way. Its also less effort not to create a game at all. So what exactly your point is? Whatever you do, it won't be unnoticeable. 20 maps aren't enough to give you that flexibility and feeling. And you should know that, they are randomly picking maps from list. So there is a chance that you can play on the same map in a row. To avoid that they have to keep a memory/cache-based system so that randomness can continue after a couple of maps. Which again, requires a development effort.
Apparently, you don't know how software development works. And yes, there isn't overlap. They are not even working on same codebase or programming language.
Engine Developers are working on optimization for certain Video Cards as well as the other general optimisation. They are also in charge of porting the engine to other platforms such as PlayStation and Xbox among other things that you don't have to know at the moment.
I disagree. I think you're speaking for other people as if everyone shares the same experience as you. To me, give me 50 or so total field battle maps and I probably won't even notice if I get the same combination of trees and rocks twice in a row (which would be very unlikely to happen anyway!). While I think most people would agree with you in principle that they want more field battle map variety, I also think the general lack of complaints shows that even now, most people don't find it to be a huge problem. My point is that less effort is relevant when time is at such a premium and every development action has an opportunity cost.
1) Yes actually, if you play a game for tens of hours, you WILL notice repetition. It doesn't come immediately, but after some time, you'll feel the "same-ish-ness", and after some more time you'll get some measure of being bored.
Check Akka's answer. 50 maps mean you need (50 x terrain type) maps - which is more than 200. If you are saying overall 50 is okay, then basically what you are saying is around 10 for each type - and you are claiming that this won't be noticeable? Then I guess you have a bad memory.
People started to leave forum. Game is also swimming in bugs at the moment so it's hard to notice that.
I explained to you the difference between their codebase and their functionality as programmers already. I'm not going to do that twice.
On release there were ~240000 concurrent players, now its ~12000. So your point is?
Not that many people care about the game either since 95% of people you are mentioning dropped the game completely so it's not very logical to make an assumption from there, isn't it?
Instead, let's tell to people "Not that many people care about that" whenever they want to say something about this and try to shut them down with weird arguments and later let's expect to see "too many people" asking about it.
Because you are not making any much sense with your pointless argument hence I automatically assumed that you think it's not very logical to have procedural map creation because TW won't have a resource for it. If that's not your point and if your point is "I like having 5 maps and playing on same field" then we have nothing to discuss anyway. I strongly disagree.
