Bannerlord enjoyment curve for me

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

.Brandis

Subforum Moderator
Best answers
0
If you're going to attack someone's argument, the least you could do is read it.
I read that. You're arguing that BL should have higher numbers due to the sandbox and modding, but the sandbox and modding are currently extremely limited and/or nonexistant. There are no major mods or modding tools released.

BL EA is performing the same as a singleplayer one-shot campaign game because that's what it is. We always knew that modding would come later. Also, MP is bad.
 

Lagstro

Baron
Best answers
0
I read that. You're arguing that BL should have higher numbers due to the sandbox and modding, but the sandbox and modding are currently extremely limited and/or nonexistant.

BL EA is performing the same as a singleplayer one-shot campaign game because that's what it is. We always knew that modding would come later. Also, MP is bad.
I mean, you basically just made my point for me. You just said that SP is currently failing as a sandbox title AND that the MP is just straight up bad, hence why it didn't retain its player base. Bannerlord is supposed to be a great sandbox experience with a decent MP experience, and it has currently accomplished neither... so here we are, with Bannerlord having the playerbase longevity/retention rate of story based SP games with content that runs out within 25 hours.
 

.Brandis

Subforum Moderator
Best answers
0
I mean, you basically just made my point for me. You just said that SP is currently failing as a sandbox title AND that the MP is just straight up bad, hence why it didn't retain its player base. Bannerlord is supposed to be a great sandbox experience with a decent MP experience, and it has currently accomplished neither... so here we are, with Bannerlord having the playerbase longevity/retention rate of story based SP games with content that runs out within 25 hours.
Maybe I'm circling around the same idea.

My angle was that the numbers are a weak point to criticize the game over. Every case for having more players, you can just claim it's because of EA:

+The game should have more players because of sandbox replay-ability
-Doesn't have full sandbox elements yet
+Modding
-No modding tools or major mods yet
+Multiplayer
-MP is unfinished

Despite being EA, the numbers are in-line with the other releases of March.

This is why the lack of a roadmap is so significant because it prevents us from giving focused feedback. Our negative feedback can always be answered with "well it's just EA," even from the devs perspective. Also, I'm sure the devs agree with us on quite a few issues, but there's some behind-the-scenes stuff that they have to get through first. We just don't know because there's no roadmap.

The base of a good game is there, it's just covered in non-attuned mechanics with only a skeleton game around it to test. Some stuff like no duel mode after 1 year makes zero sense. Unused maps that are disabled when everyone asks for more maps, ect.

At this point, I don't think even TW expects anyone to play the game, except what I assume is a couple of teams that were invited to the internal testing. But it's there if you want to play it.

Most people I know are waiting for the upcoming patch. Hopefully it's significant.
 

Talbrys

Veteran
Best answers
0
I'm not sure I'll ever be able to grasp the mental gymnastics people use when using a comparison of an unfinished game to a finished game as the basis for their argument vOv
 

jon01

Knight
Best answers
0
The unfinished version of Bannerlord is all we have to talk about right now. We'll talk about the finished version when it comes. People had much bigger expectations for the MP scene at its launch (even during EA). A big opportunity to expand the scene was missed, because of the direction the game's been taken early on. I'm not sure if the full release will create the same degree of opportunity. You can say it's unfinished, but it looks like they expended a lot of effort on content for the EA release that doesn't tap into what people desired, and I'm not sure to what extent they mean to provide it at all.
 

Talbrys

Veteran
Best answers
0
That makes no sense. Because the finished product isn't out yet, we should be looking at the unfinished (and advertised as such) product and judging it with the same metrics you would judge a finished product. Obviously it's going to fall short.
 

Alyss

Master Knight
Best answers
0
That makes no sense. Because the finished product isn't out yet, we should be looking at the unfinished (and advertised as such) product and judging it with the same metrics you would judge a finished product. Obviously it's going to fall short.
Ye it's true it's unfinished, but you can still judge the content that is already out. I personally don't wish for a ton of new content, I just want the current content to be fixed. If we wait until the finish product to tell that the core of the game is bad, it'll be too late. However, you look like a TW fanboy so I don't think we will be able to convince you that criticizing this game is for the best.
 

Talbrys

Veteran
Best answers
0
Ah, the good old fanboy ad hominem. Between that and the fact you think posting numbers comparing active users counts as constructive criticism to help the devs make a better game shows you have no real interest in improving the game, you just want to join the torch and pitchfork crowd.
 

jon01

Knight
Best answers
0
I'm saying the MP playerbase that the game's retained during EA is very underwhelming, regardless of however successful other finished games have been. I expect it to get better later on, but the MP scene would probably be in a much better state overall had TW focused on establishing more of the core elements that made MP great for its big initial release.

Also, you shouldn't stop judging the game just because it's unfinished. If it improves later, then great, but providing honest feedback right now is fair and can potentially be useful.
 

Talbrys

Veteran
Best answers
0
At no point did I state we should just ignore issues.

But pointing out it's metrics don't follow the same patterns (in this particular case player counts) as games released in a finished state and using that to justify arguments the game is doomed/mismanaged/etc is retarded. And is not constructive criticism.
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
At no point did I state we should just ignore issues.

But pointing out it's metrics don't follow the same patterns (in this particular case player counts) as games released in a finished state and using that to justify arguments the game is doomed/mismanaged/etc is retarded. And is not constructive criticism.
If i were to take it in its metrics, the game has been in development for almost 10 years.
 

RCC_God

Knight
Best answers
0
The problem is that the game is terrible in its current state, and without a ton of work it can never reach peaks. I think most people believe it can be reached, but it doesn’t exactly inspire a ton of community faith when taleworlds didn’t take in their feedback in alpha or change many of the things that still hurt the game
 

Talbrys

Veteran
Best answers
0
The problem is that the game is terrible in its current state, and without a ton of work it can never reach peaks. I think most people believe it can be reached, but it doesn’t exactly inspire a ton of community faith when taleworlds didn’t take in their feedback in alpha or change many of the things that still hurt the game
Well I can't speak to the close alpha/beta stages as I wasn't included in those. However it would not surprise me to learn TW was weary of putting too much in the game before releasing early access to cut down on the initial load of bugs they would need to fix when the game was introduced to a massive variety of hardware configurations and other variables they wouldn't get with a closed test.
 
Best answers
0
Well I can't speak to the close alpha/beta stages as I wasn't included in those. However it would not surprise me to learn TW was weary of putting too much in the game before releasing early access to cut down on the initial load of bugs they would need to fix when the game was introduced to a massive variety of hardware configurations and other variables they wouldn't get with a closed test.
Pretty sure giving shields to the 2h classes wouldnt cause any bugs.
 

rektasaurus

Squire
Best answers
0
Pretty sure giving shields to the 2h classes wouldnt cause any bugs.
In sp you can use a shield and two handed sword as a one handed weapon at the same time. Put shield on back and hit x to change to two handed. Literally doesn’t make sense why this isn’t possible in mp. Would love to see a nice shield as a perk for every class in skirmish seeing as it’s the only way to stop ranged without dancing to juke. Change two handed to medium inf 2020.

Bannerlord enjoyment curve
Yikes. I don’t want to ask questions about what’s actually going on. Correlation does not equal causation stuff. I think with more marketing, esp on the mp end, as updates roll in those numbers can be pumped up.
 
Last edited: