TW does not obfuscate their code, you can inspect their code with dnspy or etc. easily. This shows that you do not know what you are talking about. It is Bannerlord Online dev/s that obfuscate their code. My issue is with people who use Bannerlord Online as an example to twist the TaleWorlds' quote on the co-op campaign. Their re-coding includes straight-up removal of vanilla systems and implementation of much more rudimentary ones, so they would work with a server. Bannerlord Online is not a full campaign and it is never going to be one.I'm pretty sure no-one has claimed the mod is meant as a co-op campaign to begin with, even the developer has had to clarify his intention to a bunch of small-brains in the past. However, they're getting there, as they're soon to release factions of which players can pledge allegiance to within a few updates, and there's already ''Wildlands'' which is a PvP area in-game, as well as trading between players, making it more of an open-world RPG. Clearly they've had to recode things to work in the multiplayer. I find it funny when people expect this sole modder to have everything complete, plus more on day 1, especially when TW does, per your own rhetorics, obfuscate their code too. Anyway, BO has a rather clear roadmap on their discord compared to other studios.
No, they did not promise absolute weekly patches. They said time frame might change if there are issues, and clearly there are issues with 1.3 patch.I am not sure if you are following the announcements from TW. People are not complaining about no patches coming out EVERY OTHER DAY. TW has promised to do weekly updates with beta branches and later alpha branches. Now we don't see any alpha branches, and there had not been an update for more than a week.
It would be fine if TW comes out and explains what is happening here. Are they enjoying a holiday, which is fine btw? Is there a change of plan? Any new developments that may need more time? Any of these would satisfy a majority of the screaming players. But nothing, radio silent. So I say the complaining sentiments of the community are well justified.
JSTOR is an outside source is it not? His hand-picked articles do not prove me wrong. That article itself was written because the site which he linked caused outrage among British Historians. I was not wrong with anything I said. And if you read what I wrote correctly, these were the reasons we started the Middle Ages, Dark Ages. from 500CE to 1500 CE, which were then proved wrong, and dropped from usage by majority. This games historical frame of reference is 9th-10th century. That makes his usage again, incorrect.Your words are clear. You state there is only one reason it was called the Dark Ages, which has been proven wrong. And then you attacked his education...which was laughable considering how little you knew about the topic. Again, you were proven wrong and cannot hope to prove yourself correct as any single thing that goes against what you said proves you wrong. That happens when you use absolutes.
But I do thank you for once again NOT posting anything to prove yourself correct with any outside source. No scientific method on your part. I am really disappointed...no chance to use my big gun on you before growing tired with you so I will just end my post with it to slap down any possible post by you later on.
First historian is nicknamed which of the following "Great finder of truth via evidence" Or, "the Father of LIES".
What is the correct common expression for history? "Historian is written by the one that finds the evidence first" Or, "History is written by the victor".
Yeah, scientific method. History and factual evidence has as much to do with each other as your original comment that started this and...facts. Have a great day, thanks for the laughs.
The majority does not mean ALL, you are twisting my words to fit your own argument. Even the article linked above limits the usage of Dark Ages to the 5-7th century. So, his usage still would be incorrect. And you can go check publications from 2010 to 2020 at JSTOR. Most publications that include Dark Ages, A) Include it to prove dark ages in fact, not dark ages, B) Re-publications of old books, C) Are not talking about Middle Ages.Nope. He must prove that ALL historians no longer use the term Dark Ages for any other reason. All of them. His statement was universal to try to condemn your use of the term. I already have proven that there are 2 other reasons why the term is used and that they still use it for those reasons.
History not being a science does not mean we don't use the scientific method in academic studies which history is a part of. For something to get disproven, it needs the majority of a scientific field to agree to it, which is the case with Dark Ages.History is not science and NO that is NOT how science works. 100% of all scientists rarely ever agree on any one thing. There are even scientists that say Darwin was wrong. The Deniable Darwin is a book of studies done that question it.
You have this thing called a "all or nothing" attitude.
I do not need to hand-select my list of experts, because that includes most of the academic circles. On the other hand you do.Ignorance of what? Not agreeing with your hand selected list of experts?
Except X group of people just can't say "it's disproven" and then pull a Picard and say "Make it so." It's an ongoing debate, nothing is disproven, lol.
Yes, that is how science works. If your information is wrong or disproven, which in this case is, we disregard that. There are many historical records from the Middle Ages, there are no LACK OF HISTORICAL RECORDS as you claim.So if a thing is not upheld by 100% of all historians...no one upholds it and it magically makes everything else other historians say magically disappear and not exist...So long, thanks for placing yourself into the same uneducated category as the person I replied to.
There is "method of speech" and willful ignorance, yours is the latter.In my industry if you show up to work and start criticizing everyone's method of speech and word choice you'd be in the unemployment line tomorrow. I'd go as far as to say that goes for most lines of work.
Nah, mate. It just shows your education is lacking. We have much more data about how much technological progress there were in Europe during the Middle Ages.That's not a governing body. That's a group of people very much afraid of losing their jobs if they say anything that isn't PC due to people being so easily offended these days. It's part of the modern brainwashing that requires everything to be relabeled to erase any chance of a word pissing off someone with overly thin skin. Personally I don't much give a crap. If it walks like a duck, and whacks like a duck, it's a duck.
There is though, and the guy you are replying included that governing body. Historiography professors.2) There is no such thing as an outdated term. Last I checked there isn't a global and universally accepted governing body on word usage. By your own logic I could say that you shouldn't be using the word "goofy" or starting sentences with "Like." You should by modern standard be calling me a "Boomer" and using some acronym someone came up with 12 minutes ago on twitter. If you want to cite outdated means of communication I'd like to point out your post didn't include a single link to a meme.
Even if we see this game as an empire builder, casus belli and jus ad bellum were not a thing back then.You want to put a little bit of "paradox vibe" into this game with Casus belli and vassals swarm (who said HRE)?
+1 from me
unfortunately majority doesn't see this game as empire builder including devs, this is more character driven RPG with RTS battles.