Bannerlord is fine, we just have to adapt to it

[TomaSkTemplar]

For the first time ever I got to see two words together 'incorrect fact' as said by kweassa, what is this, mental gymnastics, or an accusation for using ones imagination and feelings and mixing them up with objective reality ? An incorrect fact ? Non-essential or a lie ? But how can a fact be incorrect ? It cant. If something is wrong, incorrect, then it is no fact.

I am neither needing to defend the game in its current form, as it is lacking in many ways, but at the same time I dont have the need to come up with hatred because I suppose I dont have any to throw around. You are spilling hatred also when you are really complaining about people that you are dissatisfied with, becuse they dont share the lovely feelings for the game as you do, they dont need to become your enemies, unless you made the game your god, or idol, that needs all the protection from the ignorant evil pagans, with you being its righteous faithful protector doing the defending, while you might be forming some sort of groupthink defensive elite - gatekeepers with some other like-minded people.

As such, both 'defender' and 'basher' have their own tinted glasses and no person is immune to their own biases. When somebody claims to be unbiased, this is a sign of an insincere lying person, who cant even perceive them not being always right

I really o not like it when people mix feelings with objectively identified and provable things. If people get to a serious university (not brainwash) environment, where they need to back up their claims on multiple levels by things that are backed up by as much as possible evidence that cant be twisted around like statistics, you would get a lot less bickering about how people feel and disagree. Feelings are not objective reality and they are not representative of facts.

 

[daxiapi777]

It is. But it also depends on company size. Chaotic and unstructured will work fine with a very small team, it can wreak havoc when you grow bigger.
I do worry about their capabilities, because I worry about where the game is going.

I am studying firm organization as PhD subject. From what I know, TW might have serious problems in scalar chain and co-ordinating factors.

 

[Koshkasa]

There is a problem with end game, there is a problem with mid game, and, lastly, there is a problem with early game

Well, that's not too insightful, but partially true.

End game is currently not going anywhere. You have the exact same level of control whether you are in charge of your own kingdom or just a petty T2 vassal, and that's problematic. Once you create a kingdom, it's good old map painting against somewhat delusional AI declaring wars for the fun of it, 'cept the color's different.

That's not to say end game is inherently broken, there just is none. Once you've got a couple cities and a T4 clan, that's the peak of "buttons to press". Your kindgom allows you to paint dudes and fiefs in a color of YOUR choosing, but it still feels like the leader's office is a hereditary jester position.

There is a solid midgame buried under strange economy quirks and influence spam policies. I expected a development of internal politics such as conspiring from WB, but there is no such thing. I guess we'll see that further down the road or when mod tools get released.

The midgame's samey, it's fights over and over again, repetitive, but not boring if you're in it for combat. It ain't broken, it just isn't built to cater to popular demand right now. It's more than playable, it's actually enjoyable to some people, myself included.

The early game isn't much different from previous MnB's, I'd say. It's hunting looters, trading salt or running around on village quests. It wasn't broken then and it still isn't broken today. Unless you were expecting some Nova Aetas early-game buildup, it's par for the course.

All in all, early to mid game is more feature-barren than in Warband (not even speaking about mods to it), but there's nothing wrong with that. We'll likely have those expanded upon in the foreseeable future. It's unbalanced, too, but that's like blaming an oak seed for being a bad building material - just give it time where it obviously needs some.

 

[ZydrateTheSmoothCriminal]

Ne-ga-tory

 

[mr_nifty]

Yeah, thats really the problem. The base mechanics pretty much only cover... combat. Trade is bare bones, diplomacy does not exist, intrigue does not exist. The only meaningful thing a player can do is form a party, fight looters, level his clan, become a vassal, conquer a town, hire more troops, conquer the whole map. Done. Oh yes, you can make weapons (if you have time to sink hours into improving your smithing skill).


Yes, TW is an indie dev studio. But at the point when you foster the hype for a game for years, promise that the features will surpass what we already know of M&B and then host an EA on the largest gaming platform and slap a AAA price tag on it... sorry to say, but welcome to the world of grown up studios. This is how the big boys play, so these are the standards to be held accountable against.

You people are laughable. The game is in EA, it is not finished. What don't you understand? Sit tight and wait for the ride to stop and we'll all have a blast in the end. Shut your pie holes about a work in progress, like what did you even expect? TaleWorlds wrote very clearly what the EA entails, and especially, does not entail. Bunch of babies is what you are, the whole lot of you. Ignorant, childish, cry babies.

 

[mr_nifty]

LOL. I'm in the same boat. Never played WB and I'm flabbergasted to see how this game works. Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to spawn armies right after their defeat to make the game more challenging I can't even fathom. It is so discouraging for the player.
The only redeemable quality of the game is battles right now and even that feels totally meaningless with this system in place.
When I captured a king for the first time I thought I accomplished a big feat. Boy was i wrong. The game world doesn't react to your actions at all and there is no system in place to recognize player actions in a SINGLE PLAYER GAME.
Said king escaped captivity like the Michael Scofield he is and came back with another army in no time. I mean what is the point of the battles? And what is the difference between SP Campaign and Custom Battles at this point?

and this is why you don't buy into "hypetrains" and have unrealistic expectations from an EA game with EXPLICIT description of everything it is lacking before you can even purchase it. Wow.

 

[pyerr]

and this is why you don't buy into "hypetrains" and have unrealistic expectations from an EA game with EXPLICIT description of everything it is lacking before you can even purchase it. Wow.

I am afraid your intellectual capacity is just not big enough to understand to point, and it's not about game is in EA - not being finished .

 

[daxiapi777]

I am afraid your intellectual capacity is just not big enough to understand to point, and it's not about game is in EA - not being finished .

As a decade old WoW player, I am actually very familiar with that sentiment. 'It's just Alpha', 'It's just Beta', 'It just released', 'it's just X.1', 'We still have the next expansion'. Some players simply don't treat themselves as consumers, and somehow have the delusion that they are in some kind of partnership with the devs.

 

[eddiemccandless]

5min 500vs500 battles is an example. In VC, Pendor, even Native these battles would be long, with many hiatus' between engagements as forces regroup before engaging again. The AI simply do not allow for that in this game, and it is all a mix between the individual, formation and tactical AI.

As soon as forces engage, it becomes a cluster, despite your best efforts of holding an organized shield wall. Advance is simply too unpredictable, and charge causes chaos. It can look beautiful having action all around, but the battles end up being short because of the AI's clear lack of wanting to live by constantly swinging wildly and rarely pulling back to form up and skirmish. This is further emphasized by having a clear attacker/defender set up, despite pitch battles being fairly mutual with both sides watching and reacting to each other's movements as opposed to one being the 'all-out attacker' and defender.

That imo has a lot to do with how the physics for this game work (or don't work). As long as you can wade through troops like if they were made of jelly there really isn't even a point to a shield wall. The physics are messed up right now and need to be fixed.

 

[froggyluv]

Viking Conquest should not blow this game away after 8 years, sorry I respectfully disagree.

Disagree -i have zero urge to play Viking Conquest. Havent in ages.

 

[pyerr]

As a decade old WoW player, I am actually very familiar with that sentiment. 'It's just Alpha', 'It's just Beta', 'It just released', 'it's just X.1', 'We still have the next expansion'. Some players simply don't treat themselves as consumers, and somehow have the delusion that they are in some kind of partnership with the devs.

Like I said it doesn't have anything to the fact this is EA. The problem is you are making medieval war game, and you try to be realistic. The entire point is devs don't have solution from the start of development, to make game engine where I as player, and AI play on the same map on same rules so now you have very unbalanced game. From the start that design is wrong for this game and it's by their choice , it doesn't have anything to this game is EA. So now I have perk tree buffs, and AI lords don't (I am pretty sure) but on the other hand they have respawning ability, and it's almost impossible to balance. Why? Because they want to make game more challenging.
Hey, let's make chess game and on the higher level AI will be able to respawn figures he lost during game... just to make game more challenging.
It's not about execution, it's about idea how will game work from the start.
p.s. now they are trying to reduce 25% respawn to 10%, they are not trying to change respawn as game concept.
So it's not about EA...

 

[Go0lden_Archer]

I respectfully disagree OP.

The thought alone that game is thrown out there to be finished by modders is... utter nonsense. That's not a gaming model. Only minority of the actual player base of Skyrim used mods, yes minority.
Same here, from the people purchasing the game, only minority will go to use mods, and even less so will hope that mods will FINISH the game.
Warband wanst lacking features. It was a game made by couple of passionate people. And for that it was major success. Of course over years various mods built upon that idea, but that's to be expected. And to be expected from any sequel game too.
It's no excuse for developer team of a 100 to basically remake the game without building ontop of original. So far indeed Bannerlord is lacking depth, but it is in Early Access. They hyped the game for years, talking about amazing features of it and then thrown this out there, people had expectations starting from "Warband reskin" through "Warband reskin with mods" to "Warband with all those upgrades they talked about and more depth" and into infinity. But they got a laggy buggy mess without even most prominent features that were highlighted in dev blogs. Obviously the backlash followed.
And if on release in a year or so state of the game wont change... Then it will get even bigger backlash because no, throwing game out there for modders to work on it isn't a dev model but a failure.
And by "wont change" I mean that actual features like Diplomacy, proper Kingdom Management, Improved AI, Dynasty system etc. Not to mention lots of very popular things, like Specified Attack orders that allows to select enemy squad unit type to attack instead of Charge. More responsive UI with backspace or space, clicking to exit directly from settlement, instead of mouseclick fest. Weather maybe even with bonuses and maluses. Politics, rebellions, assasinations. To make a feel you actually have endgame and not just playing "paint a map". Autoblock, my personal favorite

P.s. and of course people would complain about lack of communication. Devs talk to people and its cool. But there isn't some sort of dev tracker to see those posts. Especially not on steam were most of players are. Knowing that patch is delayed and not abbandoned is actually needed, not all have faith in devs, nor not all should. But seeing that work is progressing and knowing what devs are working on is amazing for that faith, so why not to deliver it to the masses instead of those that follow devs on this forum or accidently stumble upon a topic.

P.s.s. I'm personally ok with a game, considering it's EA and fullheartedly support devs understanding that they have rough road and all, but even I dont want to wait forever nor hope for mods to fix the game. I want mods to expand onto an amazing game.

 

[Maximum997]

That imo has a lot to do with how the physics for this game work (or don't work). As long as you can wade through troops like if they were made of jelly there really isn't even a point to a shield wall. The physics are messed up right now and need to be fixed.

It is about AI and respawns too.

I dont want to play with 30 FPS so i have only 600 battlesize. And battles are complete mess with going back and forth to your\their respawn.
Why there is no dynamic respawns with a HUGE banner that shows respawn points?

They tried to make AI smart. But he is just incompetent and inconsistent. He does really stupid and annoying things like endless kiting with melee infantry, or he just stays in square and let you shoot them for free.

Last time i was in 800 v 800 battle and AI spend 10 minutes just on staring. Two armies was watching each others for 10 frkn minutes.

After that Benny hill running begun. It was like that:
running,running,running,running,running, killed two guys
running,running,running, killed one guy
running,running,killed another guy
Okay, they respawned another pack, time to run back.
I get my respawns - time to tun forward.

And another 10 minutes i spend on chasing those 10 guys who dont want to give up.

It was AWFUL expirience. After that i just dropped the game.

The best battle AI was in VC with option "AI always atacks". Becosue it gives you what you want - actual fight.

 

[StewVader]

Like I said it doesn't have anything to the fact this is EA. The problem is you are making medieval war game, and you try to be realistic. The entire point is devs don't have solution from the start of development, to make game engine where I as player, and AI play on the same map on same rules so now you have very unbalanced game. From the start that design is wrong for this game and it's by their choice , it doesn't have anything to this game is EA. So now I have perk tree buffs, and AI lords don't (I am pretty sure) but on the other hand they have respawning ability, and it's almost impossible to balance. Why? Because they want to make game more challenging.
Hey, let's make chess game and on the higher level AI will be able to respawn figures he lost during game... just to make game more challenging.
It's not about execution, it's about idea how will game work from the start.
p.s. now they are trying to reduce 25% respawn to 10%, they are not trying to change respawn as game concept.
So it's not about EA...

Well said. The problem many people have is with the design decisions that are really absurd and do not indicate any lessons learned from the previous iterations of M&B or the most successful mods for those games. How do you not look to the best & most popular/acclaimed mods for Warband for inspiration on what the players want and expect? I just don't get it. Do they not play their own game?

 

[daxiapi777]

I respectfully disagree OP.

P.s.s. I'm personally ok with a game, considering it's EA and fullheartedly support devs understanding that they have rough road and all, but even I dont want to wait forever nor hope for mods to fix the game. I want mods to expand onto an amazing game.

My point of presenting the possible models is just this: Skyrim and M&B are different. Skyrim is a decent game in its own right, so mods are there 'to expand onto an amazing game' as you said. But M&B is not, it is a good foundation that needed to be finalized by mods (Mainly because I believe the devs are not capable of doing it themselves). Therefore, you should probably adjust your expectations. Maybe it's better not to expect the same thing from M&B as you would do from Skyrim.

 

[froggyluv]

Skyrim and Bannerlord just need to stop bickering and kiss already spawning a new bastard child - SkyLord......better than BannerRim..

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

For the first time ever I got to see two words together 'incorrect fact' as said by kweassa, what is this, mental gymnastics, or an accusation for using ones imagination and feelings and mixing them up with objective reality ? An incorrect fact ? Non-essential or a lie ? But how can a fact be incorrect ? It cant. If something is wrong, incorrect, then it is no fact.

I am neither needing to defend the game in its current form, as it is lacking in many ways, but at the same time I dont have the need to come up with hatred because I suppose I dont have any to throw around. You are spilling hatred also when you are really complaining about people that you are dissatisfied with, becuse they dont share the lovely feelings for the game as you do, they dont need to become your enemies, unless you made the game your god, or idol, that needs all the protection from the ignorant evil pagans, with you being its righteous faithful protector doing the defending, while you might be forming some sort of groupthink defensive elite - gatekeepers with some other like-minded people.

As such, both 'defender' and 'basher' have their own tinted glasses and no person is immune to their own biases. When somebody claims to be unbiased, this is a sign of an insincere lying person, who cant even perceive them not being always right

I really o not like it when people mix feelings with objectively identified and provable things. If people get to a serious university (not brainwash) environment, where they need to back up their claims on multiple levels by things that are backed up by as much as possible evidence that cant be twisted around like statistics, you would get a lot less bickering about how people feel and disagree. Feelings are not objective reality and they are not representative of facts.

well you got a good point except for how statistics are being made and seen as proof. Because Statistics isnt an ultimate answer to things because theres more things to be considered for it to be some kind of proof you can show up. For how ex the person is running the test really have applied the right measurements right and so on.

Statistics on people as an example is such thing since you have´nt run em on all and with only a few like 100k or so you cant say that thats is enough to get a full picture of the answer. But sure if something is scientific proven and theres no diversities in between then i would say yes. Spears as an ultimate medieval weapon is another one because some have run some stats and tests on em doesnt mean they are that on the battlefield with other things in mind / Just saying

 

[Go0lden_Archer]

My point of presenting the possible models is just this: Skyrim and M&B are different. Skyrim is a decent game in its own right, so mods are there 'to expand onto an amazing game' as you said. But M&B is not, it is a good foundation that needed to be finalized by mods (Mainly because I believe the devs are not capable of doing it themselves). Therefore, you should probably adjust your expectations. Maybe it's better not to expect the same thing from M&B as you would do from Skyrim.

Yeah I get your point. But that's the thing, setting out to do a work you getting payed for only to stop half way thinking "meh, those who want this to be done will finish it" is rather silly.
Devs might be incompetent, they might lack proper management or skills idk. But they've set out to do it, and hyped masses about it. If they just stop or fail to deliver what they themselves promised it will be a... well, a fail and formal death of both franchise and developer.

 

[JustinTime49]

That imo has a lot to do with how the physics for this game work (or don't work). As long as you can wade through troops like if they were made of jelly there really isn't even a point to a shield wall. The physics are messed up right now and need to be fixed.

I seriously doubt this, but I shall hope. This seems to be a general style. Even mods that improve collision still have very short battles, and the main reason is that compared to actual formations that have the frontline and the flanks fighting, in BL as soon as the charge command is given it's like 600 infantry 1v1 duels like in the movies, except they last less than 10 seconds because they do not defend with 100 skill proficiency. Not to mention that attacking AI just charge instead of skirmishing/slow advance, and defending AI can easily be aggroed by pelting them with arrow fire.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Yeah I get your point. But that's the thing, setting out to do a work you getting payed for only to stop half way thinking "meh, those who want this to be done will finish it" is rather silly.
Devs might be incompetent, they might lack proper management or skills idk. But they've set out to do it, and hyped masses about it. If they just stop or fail to deliver what they themselves promised it will be a... well, a fail and formal death of both franchise and developer.

what are you talking about. They told that they the game is not ready yet and the mass hyped em selves. I was hyped for the game but not as hyped as some might painting it up to be and personally i got what ive expected if not more even if theres some missing parts here and there. To be frank i was pretty skeptical in the beginning seeing the fights