I assume the vast majority of refunds would be denied though, considering most fans of the mount and blade series will have 100+ hours in Bannerlord, but I've never tried it so I don't know.
I'm pretty sure over half of these people have played FAR too long to even consider refunding it. Also Like what Qwerrecd42 said, or well pasted, we were lead to believe that we would help with the development of the game. That there would be communication between consumer and dev.
And yes, we don't like this game. At least I don't, but I like the idea and style of it. So we're here to either try to help and improve this game or watch it crash further into a greater ball of fire.
And sure. Maybe. MAYBE, the devs have better things to do then read our complaints. Yet they had a year to read some of the most famous threads in this forum, those that been here since the beginning, that offered suggestions to improve this game. And they were ignored. And if they aren't improving this game, what are they doing?
I skipped out on a lot of patches, but the menu lag is worse in 1.5.10 then it was for me in 1.5.5
If you had actual arguments, you would have argued something instead of trying to impress with edginess and silly personal attacks.
This might be something they can actually add. It doesn't seem like a major feature like some of what people are demanding (Not that they demand anything specific, just that the features be 'major'. And feature that does get added doesn't count though, for it is not major).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.
Sense of accomplishment is in the eye of the beholder, and like, neither you nor steveyboi will ever find it because you are already predisposed to hating the game. Tis already too late for you, move on to other games, the fun will never be there for you.Right! None of the mechanics are layered. Its just one shallow mechanic after another. There is no payoff for anything the player does, no sense of accomplishment. Its a remarkable achievement in complete and total failure.
I will post whatever I want, not interested in your feedback thanks.
@guiskj You are wrong about the motivation for taking control from the player, this is not some kind of weird tech/UX experiment. The Taleworlds intent is to make the game simpler and more accessible for wider audience and sometimes they achieve this by simplifying features and removing complex player actions, because casuals may be confused by complex things.
It's definitely a wrong way to go about making the game accessible. You can keep the depth and complexity, but still make the game casual-friendly if the complex features are not necessary to play the game, but add to the experience. Taleworlds are stupid and don't care about their core fans.
Edit: Just look at this TW dev thinking about the battle size slider and it will become clear why they do stupid things.
There's all of one current game using this sort of mana.But then you could use Influence to buy bandit troops which earns you Infamy that decreases your Prosperity but gives you a monthly bonus to Terror and if you earn enough Terror, you unlock evil dialogs that increase your Conquerness which you can spend to stake a claim on enemy fiefs unless your Civility is higher than your Lawfulness and it's Tuesday.
If anything I would see Paradox Interactive, which by the way published Mount & Blade back in the days. Yes I know they are notorious for being unorthodox on their DLCs but still, they cater a PC audience and most of the games published under this company are quite mod-friendly and as far as I know the company is doing pretty well.
I really don't know their current relationship with TW as of now but I'm pretty sure at some point they would be interested to make a concept out of it.
It fits pretty well their " Strategy first " vision too.
That's a subjective statement.
After I played Bannerlord for a while, and was disappointed, I asked myself the same thing.
I asked myself wether Warband (native) really was so much better than Bannerlord or if that was just my imagination from all the time I played with mods.
I started another game in Warband (native) and at first I thought; hell, Warband sure has some issues.
It's graphics are horrible, the randomized battle maps with their extremely unrealistic steep mountains were a pain in the butt and a lot of the issues I was complaining about in Bannerlord are present in Warband as well (mostly AI related).
But after an hour the magic reappeared.
There is far less of a grind. If you know what to do you can get going relatively quickly compared to Bannerlord and if you play intelligently you can even with just some dozen men swing the fate of wars (or at least try to). Also whilst the game had it's problems, at least it was playable. No broken sieges, less ridiculus steam rolling and most importantly of all: a degree of depth and immersion Bannerlord does not posess. Laugh about feasts and the like all you want. But they had their place and were important to worldbuilding.
I enjoyed viking conquest, but it also felt enough on rails to make replayability less exciting. But it has been a while and I think they did a few changes since last I played itViking Conquest (official mod) was the best Mount and Blade for me. BL is objectively a step down, albeit with better graphics and UI.
I think this partly boils down to Bannerlord being a decent game unless you've played Warband. The Warband-people probably, and with good reason, expected a lot more from Bannerlord than what we currently have. I mean, if you had told me three years ago that stuff like feasts wouldn't be in the game, I would call you crazy. Now... oh well.
To be fair the critics were screaming babies that scared the dev's away... they just happened to also be very correct in what they were saying.
Being a baby doesn't mean you don't have a good point... and this forum has done plenty of both.
I puzzle why taleworlds would prefer to interface with someone with a bit of professionalism as opposed to a collection of howling monkeys, some shouting contradictory things, and one or two ranting about the wimmenz.Following a youtuber is not a replacement for critical thinking. The community here had already a comprehensive list of changes it wants (and widely agrees on) and it didn't matter much.
If a youtuber has more say with Taleworlds, then maybe we should all just try to send our community suggestions to youtubers, instead of Taleworlds.
I spent 3 hours once killing the kraken only for the fight to not end after I killed it, leaving me to have to redo the whole thing.Battle Brothers was/is a top game!
I don't get a big Mount & Blade vibe from it, but still lots of fun.
The mods have no inside look on the game development. They're volunteers.First, mexxico cared about the community and helping which no other Dev has done in months since about 1.5.7 communication has been near zero. And question me on that that TW and I'll prove ya wrong
Second you notice how most responses from TW never address our concerns, the response from a mod in here was to the guys ban, not about communication or better relations with the community, they can't answer simple questions
and third that's why I have a Youtube channel, so my voice can't be silenced when I only speak my mind and thoughts and it differs from TW, can't silence the Kitten
So answer me this mod or TW dev, if you care about us as a community, how can you make a massive change to the game i.e. turning death on in combat, not put in patch notes and then take 2 weeks, yes 2 full weeks to make first communication as to what was happening when people are asking every day in the beta branch thread without a single response.. Answer why you think that is proper communication with your community, and that is just one example of many that I could give where mexxico and before 1.5.7 Duh would never make us wait
What sources?you guys are funny. why does no one of you realise that there is no simple answer. None of us was present then. all we can do is rely on sources/tests we hope are accurate. if armor is so effective against arrows, why do so many sources claim that longbow archers decided certain battles (even from enemy perspectiv)? we don´t know (proof me wrong if you can). all we can do is getting a good idea how it COULD have been. I don´t mind a good discussion but why do you claim to have found the ultimate answer when even people who do this professional don´t have one? be open minded guys. it´s an interesting topic with much room for discussion, don´t be stubborn.
They weren't.In that list only the Mongols had archers as a core component of their army, and they weren't used remotely like how the welsh longbow was used. Literally everyone in Eurasia made bows, but they were a specialist weapon that didn't see nearly as much use in battle as most people think they did, and they weren't anywhere near as deadly as most media depicts.
The reason modern tests seem to give contradictory results is that there are just too many variables. There are primary sources which tell of horsemen with gambesons being shot with dozens of arrows and still being alive, and during the crusades there are plenty of instances of armies being bombarded for days with literally millions of arrows but only suffering a few casualties. The only way to test this properly would be to set up a real army and shoot it for days, which is obviously unfeasible. The only thing we can do is read the sources and try to infer why longbowmen were used in the hundred years war at all, when they were so rare in that part of eurasia in all the years prior.
Yes but practically everyone in Eurasia did that. What's exceptional about longbows in the HYW is how many there were. Something like 2/3rd of the English forces at Crecy were archers, while at Agincourt it was almost 100%. The only other societies capable of fielding that many professional longbowmen were the kingdom of Kongo in Central Africa in the middle ages (basically 100% longbowmen with a bodyguard of spearmen), and Nubia as a frontier region of Egypt. But other than that the longbow takes far too long to train people to use compared to how useful it is, and (probably more importantly), giving so many peasants and smallholders access to weaponary they keep all the time makes rebellions far more dangerous.
In the game currently there are just too many archers and they're all more effective than the most well trained nubian bowman in the world. Instead of being a tool for harrassing groups of infantry and slowing them down, they become machine gunners who mow down everything. I'm not saying the game has to be realistic, but reality and believability is a good starting point for balancing any game.
I do want to note that a mace tends to put more weight in the head than an axe, delivering more energy on a blow, which is why maces never really got long hafts like axes could (indeed, the halberd is a axe/spear hybrid reliant on being very long)You took it incorrectly. You opinion of maces is strictly Europocentric, more of it, late-medieval Europocentic, while we have steppe, half-steppe and desert cultures in the game. The sabers, maces and flails were there hundreds of years, if not a millennium before, because of developed horsemanship. When Vikings went to the shield wall on their own, steppe people were warring on the horses of theirs. Mace was better than axe for horseman because it did not stick, chance to leave it in the opponent body or armor was minimal, especially with added velocity of horse. And of course, axes never meant to cut, they are cleaving devices, designed for penetration. Isn't it obvious? Will you chop the tree in the same move pattern as you are cutting loaf of bread?
In our history both axes and maces weighted roughly the same 1-3 kilos. When armor went high, both weapons seconded. But there were some borders. Velocity matters the same as weight for impulse, but excessive increasing of weight severely limited ability to accelerate, along with just handling. Moving further, the completely blunt maces got flanges. Ask yourself why was there a need to put dull blades (still blades though) to the head?
As for me, that pointy part is just like axe's toe or heel, eh?
There will be still no variety, because the whole model of yours ignores the fact that any hard object will deliver energy. And this energy will not dissipated to somewhere, but will be spent, firstly, to the armor damage and secondly to the body behind with blunt trauma if armor was not perforated or pierced/slit wound if it was. Funny thing, most people are agree with an axe as good shield breaker, but hey, it's marked as cut, I should have no damage from it.
I only wanted to say that any model with zero damage will not be unrealistic, but just silly, because IRL first we have blunt force applied, then penetrating ability, then, if in place, cutting damage. In your scheme you are implying that axe has no weight and can't perforate thing, and therefore it shouldn't damage armored unit at all, while real damage received should be laying somewhere between blunt and pierced.
lul, yes the reason they gave looters 100 HP is obviously political.And 50hp for thos ****ing looters am i right? **** em!
In warband they had like 45 hp, now we got this "100 + perks for everyone!" progressive body nonsense!
Seems as though it was just wherever the emperor and his court resided and there was no equivalent to Rome or Constantinople.
" The capital moved from place to place, and the assembly of the people was called wherever the emperor desired. In practice, this was usually an army camp where his veterans could be relied upon to shout down any opposition. "