In my work (game support/outsourcing), our tester always receive the weekly patch 1 week before the release. They run all possible scenario related to changes of the patch. Major patch/update is being tested a month before public release.I'm alos curious in genreral what the testing process is like.
If they will ever implement RBM or similar option to make armor effective, it should be optional. A campaign options that can be change anytime and you can choose the level of armor effectiveness, for example:Overall I much prefer the battles in RBM but find that heavy Armour is just a bit OP for my liking even if that is realistic. It seems obvious to most that Vanilla battles are way too fast paced, amour is pathetic and archery is OP. For me the balance is somewhere between vanilla and RBM.
Yes, I'm aware that it doesn't affect the AI simulated battles. What I'm referring is to actual implementation of effectiveness of armor to the game.I think RBM doesn't do any changes to autocalc so AI vs AI battles are not affected by it. In autocalc armor and weapon doesn't matter. Only tier and if its mounted or not.
They or at least one of the dev already explained the reason of prolonged development. Also, there's no way that they intentionally delayed the development of the game, its no good for business side. Possibly due to problem on development stage or again due to reasons expressed by one of the dev.Bannerlord was announced in 2012, it is conceivable with leaks and rumors that it was in development well into 2009-10, thus 12 years.
They should improve siege defense too once they fixed the ladder or siege attack overall. I love the hard earned castle/cityif they fix ladders, you will be able to conquer easily, and if you conquer easily, you will beat the game, and if you beat the game, you wont want to play again, and if you wont want to play again, TW loses.