Search results for query: *

five bucks said:

Building a game engine does NOT take 10 years. Or even four.

Click to expand...

five bucks said:

Literally all I was hoping for was (1) Warband's feature base but with (2) better sieges, (3) better graphics, (4) better mod support, and (5) all features operational.

For a studio of 100 employees such a simple sequel should have taken 3 years tops.

Here we are 8 years of development and 2 years of early access later and not only have they still not completed (1) and (5), but the game is actually overall LESS functional than Warband and they're going to release this?

Click to expand...

svelok said:

This is kinda not true, and also kinda true but for a different reason than you say.

Campaign-to-campaign differences are actually pretty big. Especially things like Hearth and Prosperity, which depends on war and raids and sieges, can affect prices a lot - and there's a big difference between a 350g/d brewery and a 500g/d oil press. And in the medium term, shifting control of castles can hugely shift the number of villages that bring goods to any given town, affecting inputs.

The problem; and it's the same reason people turn to third party analysis in order to just copy a meta; is that the player can't experiment.

Workshops are expensive to buy, pricey to change type, and sell for a pittance. You can only have a couple at once, especially at clan tier 3-4. And the only way to know what a potential workshop will bring in is to build it! So maybe in my campaign, an oil press in Jaculan will be >500g/d consistently, many years into the game. But maybe in your game it'll only be 200g/d. You have to go waste the gold, using one of your 4 or 5 slots, to find out - and then you have to repeat that for every workshop, times every city; and don't forget that the workshops you make can even affect the profits of the others. So the number of options is huge, the reward/penalty for choosing right/wrong are large, but the player is given extremely limited information and it's both costly and difficult to experiment. As a result, the meta is that players flock towards whatever is proven to work in any campaign, relying on outside information to make up for the lack of in-game information.

I don't come bringing a magic bullet solution for this problem, but if you want players to make more diverse and/or campaign-specific choices, you need to give them more in-game information. Whether that's being able to see AI workshop profits, or seeing an estimated profit when changing workshop type, or something else altogether, I dunno.

Click to expand...

TheHunterMikiPL said:

???
I didn't play Bannerlord, I played every other Mount&Blade. Also no, you are just a M&B fanboy with bad taste.

Why not? Especially that I have played all the other M&B games.

Click to expand...

lcmiracle said:

The death and birth cycle is simply poorly thought-out. Soldier die and can be replaced relatively painlessly, precisely because how reliable their stats and growth progressions are. It was the play's skills (as in, character's skills that provide benefits to the party) and their companions' that makes the party reliable. When a companion dies, you don't just lose a body to feed the meat grinder, but also a vital part of party building.

With expandable units, they must also be easily replaceable. Either have ready-to-go professionals in a field (leader, trader, medic, whatnot) that you can find once in a short while, who can competently do the job without further levelling, or have levelling up so easy it's trivial. The first defeats the training side of things, the latter takes from the RPG side of things.

Click to expand...

Askey said:

Well despite your misguided view on the developers (in my opinion), I'm happy you're happy with the game and having fun with it (I seriously mean that). As for the "attacks" people probably just dislike seeing apologists for a company that should know better and probably feel frustrated seeing your post. I would thank the people that do the day to day work, but not so much the senior management or the company itself.

As for me, I expect more from the developers and my criticism is tough love. They should and should have done better. The rumours of an intern army (its the only explanation to this mess - that or mismanagement/ or both), I suspect is not far from the truth and I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of the original developers from Warband had left the company.
I get this feeling that the Bannerlord developers played Warband and saw it as outdated and simple and that they "could do better" - without actually seeing what made Warband a good game (I could be completely off the mark but without any strong input from the community managers people tend to make their own minds up about it).

Click to expand...

Goyyyio said:

Well you called people things too idk, and there are better displays of thankfulness like I've said this thread has become useless have a good night mate

Click to expand...

archaicwarrior said:

You must love unhistoric easy console kiddy games ?

Click to expand...

Goyyyio said:

Huh no, mostly people are just mocking because you call it an unique perspective, at least that's what I see, the rest is okey

Click to expand...

Nakh said:

Current iteration of sieges heavily biased to attacker favor,

Click to expand...