Well then they released every day patches for bugfixing, now comes nothing. maybe corona regulations in turkey hit them, but atleast make a announcement or something. it comes nothing for month. its like they couldnt handle the code and give up.Remember the good ole days (what, just 2 to 3 months ago?) when the "Its Early Access Bro" people were shilling and running cover for this horrible mess of a game?
Its becoming more and more obvious that mods are going to finish this game, and if that is the case, just open up the code and let motivated people who actually care about this game have the thorough access they need to mod it AKA finish it.
I'm sure you've guessed by now what I'm driving at. M&B2 is so much worse, so slow to fix, so empty and shallow and brittle after so many years, that I would bet £100 they used a completely different set of developers on as on M&B1, and if there was a real programmer on the team, they were not given the power to direct the coding.
If that above is true, and I were a Taleworlds top executive, I would 1) hire three real programmers immediately to tell me what they recommend to fix it, and go with whatever they say, (whether it's a fix, a re-write, game 3, whatever), if affordable (i.e. if better than going into administration); 2) once I have that plan, publically apologise for the mistake and say what I am going to do to fix it; and pray that people understand.
Mount and Blade 1 was programmed by the current top executive and his wife, lmao. And it was way buggier than Bannerlord currently.
I'm a 60 year old programmer. I've seen the whole thing, from programming in machine code in the late 70s where the phrase "real programmers ..." became popular, referring to the fact that a few can do it well, some can do it poorly, and many can't do it at all. This is the one thing executives never ever learned. To them, a programmer is a progammer, like a clerk, or a machine operator. And this is the fatal flaw that has brought many a company or system crashing down. Three real programmers can build anything workable in three years, and ten can do literally anything in ten years. Add one bad programmer into the mix and you will slow the whole thing down by 20%. That's how it is, because they have to clean up after their buddy as well now.
Now, twenty years ago, some executive, rebelling against the highly skilled cost of using real and good programmers, had the bright idea of hiring staff from overseas where the exchange rate made it worthwhile. To provide the labour for this method they instituted training schools which churned people off the streets and into programming for what was to them good salaries, hugely increasing the percentage of bad programmers
Sadly the results are like this: you still need at least one good programmer for every three bad ones, and the three bad ones produce as much as two good programmers, only, it is poor quality code. Buggy, long-winded, obscure, difficult to follow or maintain, brittle, inflexible, skewed, not fit for purpose. So then the good programmer has to send it back to have added supports, diversions around obstacles, sticky tape and string added to make it work. The final buggy mess is such a Heath Robinson mangle of knotted fishing-line that if you just touch it in one corner, the far corner flops down and breaks - invisibly. It takes months to apply fixes on top of and around it, and each fix makes the problem worse.
At the end of the day, you get the system for slightly less than it would have cost you using real programmers, but you don't want what you got, and can hardly use it.
Programming is a real skill and requires aptitude. It's similar to surgery. Would you like to have someone who studied hard and got good results and has a good track record do a kidney transplant on you at a high cost, or go to some place where they train people en masse to do kidney transplants at a much lower cost? Executives ignore this fact at their peril.
I'm sure you've guessed by now what I'm driving at. M&B2 is so much worse, so slow to fix, so empty and shallow and brittle after so many years, that I would bet £100 they used a completely different set of developers on as on M&B1, and if there was a real programmer on the team, they were not given the power to direct the coding.
If that above is true, and I were a Taleworlds top executive, I would 1) hire three real programmers immediately to tell me what they recommend to fix it, and go with whatever they say, (whether it's a fix, a re-write, game 3, whatever), if affordable (i.e. if better than going into administration); 2) once I have that plan, publically apologise for the mistake and say what I am going to do to fix it; and pray that people understand.
Yes, but that was over a decade ago, made with a tiny budget. And the first of its kind. Literally a pioneer, so bugs where understandable.
In Bannerlord, you have this.
Buy troop for 10 denars, keep him alive for a few battles, troop now heavy tank.
Wow, cool what next?
[...]
All in all what does Bannerlord offer thats new AND great?
Nothing. Just better graphics and better combat I guess once you use a combat overhaul mod to stop arrows from killing absolutely KITTED units.
So do you have heavy tanks or not?
But the base to have a great game is there, just more development is needed. Let's hope that this refactoring nightmare will end soon and we will be able to get all this new stuff.
1) The original developer from Mount and Blade studied computer science in Ankara. I am not sure what you mean with "help from oversea", but chances are, he is it .
2) He was the programmer in the original Mount and Blade, he is the lead of the project for Bannerlord. If you think that Mount and Blade was a success because of some "real programmer" developing it, well that's him leading Bannerlord right now.
People who are good at doing things (writing code, developing games, you name it) are not necessarily also good at managing people who do things. In the case of Bannerlord, it seems obvious by now that having a bigger team working on the game backfired. And given the complete lack of focus and direction that the project has, I am inclined to blame it on management, not the developers.
Ive heard rumors that some are literally just entry level college kids while obviously Aragon is a very talented head honcho programmer. Probably a case of a few not quite up to speed programmers combined with management errors.
That is really very interesting!! Thank you for the info. It may well be some intermediate level of mismanagement. But I think it is more likely to be simply a lack of awareness of the need to have 'real' programmers - i.e. people with ultra aptitude and experience - directing the design and the coding, if not, ideally, doing everything. Personally I'm convinced that cheap and/or inexperienced programmers screw it up, regardless of management. While 'real' programmers can pretty much manage poor management. From my 10 years contracting and 25 years permanent experience, I have time and again seen this play out, with 100% predictable results every time, yet people, especially managers, very rarely spot the cause, nor do the junior programmers. At the end of the day the game timing is 100% consistent with far too much reliance on too many junior programmers. Maybe they had a low budget. Understand I am not criticising them at all. In fact I admire the ground-breaking concepts and efforts. I'm just trying to share a very little known fact from my experience.1) The original developer from Mount and Blade studied computer science in Ankara. I am not sure what you mean with "help from oversea", but chances are, he is it .
2) He was the programmer in the original Mount and Blade, he is the lead of the project for Bannerlord. If you think that Mount and Blade was a success because of some "real programmer" developing it, well that's him leading Bannerlord right now.
People who are good at doing things (writing code, developing games, you name it) are not necessarily also good at managing people who do things. In the case of Bannerlord, it seems obvious by now that having a bigger team working on the game backfired. And given the complete lack of focus and direction that the project has, I am inclined to blame it on management, not the developers.
Encyclopedia is what ruined this game for me. In Warband it was this interactive world were if I wanted to find out something I would have to ask, I didnt had to open Google chrome and see who is this or who was that, I could just ask someone, I could get information from people. Bannerlord, instead of improving upon this, decided to put Google chrome inside the game in the form of wikipedia, it's boring, its unnimersive and it takes control from the player, which is probably the biggest fault