You just don't play something 550h and then say it's not the worth of 50€, no matter how flawed it is. I actually didn't read the rest of OP, because that alone statement is a complete paradox, so I don't know what was his reasoning.
Perhaps saying it wasn't worth the 50€ was a liberal use of hyperbole, but you should avoid formulating opinion on someone's statement based on a small element of it.
Always take everything someone states into account, it is a insight into their reasoning and thought process and will better help you understand why they made it in the first place.
Their comment was originally based on the state of the game, they then gave evidence for this opinion through their game time. Granted, there are probably less subjective evidence's to provide, but 550h is at minimum a decent understanding of the gameplay, especially if most was focused on MP.
Discrediting this evidence based on its existance being in juxtaposition to the opinion is just flawed. It'd be like telling a Wildlife Conservationist their complaints are paradoxical because they spend all their time trying to fix the environment yet also keep saying we're doomed at this current rate, so why pick up litter if this doom is already set in progress?
You can still hope for positive change, and still find elements of joy in what is otherwise a dull or depressing environment.
550 hours of mostly solo Skirmish, I cannot bring myself to play this game anymore. Multiplayer is nowhere, NOWHERE, near any acceptable state for a game that costs 50 euros. The balance is not there, too many glitches, bad designs on maps. Unacceptable camera and close corridor fighting, huge balance issues.
Noone ever said it will be worth its money in ea already though. There are many glitches and imbalances, but nowhere near as many as there were in beta, so I am confident, that they wil iron out these things until full release. I don't share your view about the maps. To me they seem well thought through and tested (which they are by alpha and beta testers) and I never had to blame the map for something (except a glitch where you could go on a roof which has been fixed). If you use good tactics, you can cope with every terrain/map, as its true for rl too.
- It's very evident that whoever designs maps do not play mount and blade. If he did, he would already know about the camera issues, the corridor fighting and the plethora of problems that follow closed quarter combat.
Guess what, in medieval times there were fights happening in narrow corridors where you couldn't see and fight as good as in the open. The enemy has the same disatvantages in such a place. And its not even really hard to avoid them.
- An atrocious amount of glitches. Animation skipping when you attack from getting up (knocked down), animation of x swing on your screen shows as a different animation on the enemy screen. For example countless times I have attacked from my right, readying a right to left strike and my character will do some dumb **** and attack from another angle DESPITE the animation showing that I am readying an attack from another angle. Archery through shields, glitchable huts, ghostshots, throwing not registering. Swing ready/kick/slash glitch, the most cheesy way to open an opponent, an abusable glitch.
Stances, shield bash. The most pathetic excuse to add pseudo-depth in the game. Shield bash is the most annoying, ez mode interrupt ever in existence and it should be removed totally. Stances add nothing but clunkiness in the game and furtherly slow down the already slow the nature game to a yawnfest.
Its not easy to use shield bash effectively against good opponents. To me it seems like a viable addition to the combat system, giving it more variety and therefore depth.
Cavalry. Cavalry is the class that carries bad players effectively removing any skill needed to get a kill in the game. It has been broken since 2019 and it's still in a pathetic state with top damage, top utility, top interruption and top global presence. They do not knockdown teammates either. The sound cues are bad for them aswell. It's a literal tank.
Cavalry is a problem, yes. But there are very easy ways to fix it in my opinion. The couching cool down could be longer or the minimum pace to activate it, fall demage for horses could (and definitely should) get drastically raised, teammate knockdown could get activated just to name a few.
Delays, slowed down gameplay. The most stupid decision ever made by TW, to appeal to the realistic kids who think realism is good for a game. I cannot play infantry combat over 10 seconds with drooling from boredom in this hit/block/hit/block sequence. Infantry has been in a pathetic state since last year. They move as slow as chickens and they are BORING to play. It takes about 5 years to move from one point of the map to another. I instantly quit any empire matches due to how slow the infantry moves.
I allways felt that way in Warband, due to its giant maps. In Bannerlord thats not the case for me at all. You literally encounter the enemy in 10 seconds, that complain is unjustified. The combat is slower, but its really not like you would be "drooling from boredom", only because its not as fast (stiff and sometimes rediculous) as warbands Combat.
Realism does not apply to archers. Selective realism at its best. Archers somehow can deal damage at 1m infront of them fully with arrows, jumpshot, 360 shot, penetrate, legshot, interrupt cav and have 40+ armor.
Class system. The biggest abomination I have ever seen out in any video game I have played in multiplayer. Bad design, limited, restricting, bad looking when it comes to aesthetics, 80% of perks are bad choices, unviable classes because some dev thought it was actually a good idea in a skill-based game to feature both 0 armored and fully armored warriors. I have never ever seen a worse design choice than this pile of **** we call classes of bannerlord.
Some like the class system and some (probably most) dont. I dont have a problem with it, but it seems senseless in deathmatch or skirmish. In captain mode and siege it seems to work perfectly fine and helps equalizing the chances to win. The perks are mostly very useful, add variety and more customisation possibilities, which is a bit like of a compromiss. TW don't want to make Warband 2 so of course there are different systems in place, which not everyone likes of course.
Pros ignored. A smart company hires pros to design the game together. They do not get some random napoleonic wars kid to design the whole game and define native. You do not ignore the core playerbase. Because then you have less than 50 people on multiplayer, just like you have now.
What do you know about TW workers and their credentials? Only because you don't like their designs, doesen't mean, that they, for a fact, are making bad designs. Playing a game for many hours doesen't make you the ultimate judge of how good designs are. TW are not ignoring their core player base, but they do have certain plans for this game and never said, that they will make Bannerlord solely based on players feedback in every aspect. They do take a lot of criticism into account and listen to much what we say and suggest. More than any other game developer I know of.
- Patches are slow as ****. Patching a multiplayer game requires fast acting and meaningful changes. Instead we wait for 20+ days for a ****ing map rework that does not work anyway.
They are constantly working on things. Some take a lot of time and efford, especially due to the complexity of this game. Other things can be finished in a wheek, thats why they get pushed out more quickly and it looks like they took so long for "that" thing, while they actually worked on something different too the whole time. They "usually" patch the game every week, which is quite acceptable in my opinion.
Rage mode off. If you decide to stay, good luck and I hope the future is brighter because we do live in the dark age of MnB franchise regarding multiplayer. I will still look on forums. I will be playing Valorant, because it scratches the same itch warband did (and CSGO). Fast paced combat, few hits to kill, meaningful positioning and movement and fluid as hell.
Bannerlord is an ambitious project and so many people beeing able to influence it in its development is fantastic! Sure, it quite isn't there where we want it to be, but it will be and we can help the devs getting there. Thats why I stay in multiplayer and try to keep giving useful feedback to the things they do, instead of leaving and later complain, that they didn't make the game how I want it to be, which they can't do without getting feedback from me of course. Valorant and csgo giving you the same type of satisfaction, you expect Bannerlord to give you, clearly shows, that you expect something from Bannerlord, which it isn't, should not be and will never be. If you would really care about this game, you would stay and play it.
Nothing else to do in a global pandemic, no other large releases in terms of games, playing towards a 750 win badge in the vain hope that the game will be enjoyable by the time you do reach it... it’s hardly a paradox. Look past his first sentence and you’ll see why he hates the game and wants it to be better.
I will be playing Valorant, because it scratches the same itch warband did (and CSGO). Fast paced combat, few hits to kill, meaningful positioning and movement and fluid as hell.
Hit the nail on the head for me tbh. I’m also gonna peace out for a bit once I hit my 750 wins badge and see if meaningful changes start happening but I ain’t holding my breath at this point.
You just don't play something 550h and then say it's not the worth of 50€, no matter how flawed it is. I actually didn't read the rest of OP, because that alone statement is a complete paradox, so I don't know what was his reasoning.
Valorant is really great. It's essentially CSGO with a non-realistic take. Needs pinpoint accuracy and a lot of strategy. On the other hand, I do not really care about your opinion on my games of taste.
Noone ever said it will be worth its money in ea already though. There are many glitches and imbalances, but nowhere near as many as there were in beta, so I am confident, that they wil iron out these things until full release. I don't share your view about the maps. To me they seem well thought through and tested (which they are by alpha and beta testers) and I never had to blame the map for something (except a glitch where you could go on a roof which has been fixed). If you use good tactics, you can cope with every terrain/map, as its true for rl too.
TW said themselves that the game will be near completion in EA and it will a ton of content. They said that. Maps are horrible and boring so far. It does not matter if they are balanced. They have a ton of glitches and the layout is as basic as a map can get. It's so basic, that it favours archery and cavalry because it lacks a decent layout.
Guess what, in medieval times there were fights happening in narrow corridors where you couldn't see and fight as good as in the open. The enemy has the same disatvantages in such a place. And its not even really hard to avoid them.
Nobody cares about realism in an online video game, which is meant to be competitive and is a small squad based game. The design of small corridors in Bannerlord is not tailored after 'realism', they are just bad design. And the biggest issues are the glance near walls that are annoying, incosistent and a **** mechanic in general in addition to the countless camera issues and objects overlapping with it and you cant see anything. You are playing a third person game. It's not realistic. It will never be.
The combat has quite some issues, especially in its responsiveness, that is well known and hopefully the devs will do something about that.
I allways felt that way in Warband, due to its giant maps. In Bannerlord thats not the case for me at all. You literally encounter the enemy in 10 seconds, that complain is unjustified. The combat is slower, but its really not like you would be "drooling from boredom", only because its not as fast (stiff and sometimes rediculous) as warbands Combat.
The movement of infantry is too slow. It's extremely boring and it makes the game feel like i drag a sack of grain around. It's both slow on travel and fighting.
They are constantly working on things. Some take a lot of time and efford, especially due to the complexity of this game.
A player named Gab made a module and fixed big issues in combat in about 3-4 days using xtml edits. There is nothing complex in multiplayer yet. It's a totally different module than single player and it has a different team working on it.
What do you know about TW workers and their credentials? Only because you don't like their designs, doesen't mean, that they, for a fact, are making bad designs.
The majority of people do not like multiplayer design and that is a very clear clue that it is a very bad design. So they are for a fact making bad designs because video games are meant to be fun, entertaining and suck your time in.
Its not easy to use shield bash effectively against good opponents. To me it seems like a viable addition to the combat system, giving it more variety and therefore depth.
I never argued that shield bash is hard. My claim was that it's a useless and rythm-breaking move that requires no skill. It gives no hard punishment if you miss it and you can punch people to death if they dont have a shield. Genius.
Their vision of how the game should be is clearly not shared with the community. If it was, there wouldnt be countless topics saying how disappointing people are in the combat, and the servers wouldnt be emptying. We gave our feedback last year, its still there to be reviewed.
The whole 'vision' thing that has been said countless times before is a very stupid arguement, there is no 'vision' for a game that is online. When you make a multiplayer game, like it or not, you make it to be enjoyed by thousands of people. I doubt TW devs actually play multiplayer right now and all those that I have seen in-game clearly do not have knowledge of the combat. The devs should give MP fanbase what we want and not what the devs want. Otherwise there is no reason to have a multiplayer aspect at all. Especially when the feedback is overwhelmingly negative.
- Pros ignored. A smart company hires pros to design the game together. They do not get some random napoleonic wars kid to design the whole game and define native. You do not ignore the core playerbase. Because then you have less than 50 people on multiplayer, just like you have now.
As a NW kid, ahhhh I hate everything in this game and also yeah the NW fanbase is still on NW. I did play alot of Native back in the day. But to be real the devs have there own vision of the game and don't listen to anyone else.
