• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Bannerlord was a grift

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Roy1012

Duke
That's what they're working on. Jamming the full game inside their chosen minimum pc spec and keeping it stable is their primary objective. We rarely give them credit for that and demand all sorts of features that might make it impossible. Hopefully modders will add such icing to the cake as they don't have to cater to TW's minimum pc spec.
I was not aware this was an issue. Is it a widespread one? I understand Warband took communities by a storm due to its relatively low specs for the time (even more so now), literally anyone with a potato could run it. However with Bannerlord, only a handful of guys are unable to run it within my community of over 200 people; perhaps this is just a bad sample? Either way, are modders even able to affect the specs? I'm sure there's always some optimization that can be done, but aren't graphics requirements governed by the game itself?

Well, they have announced custom servers. And I get why they'd want to hold off on them until leaving EA, but if its the right strat... I dont know.. One could argue that they've "blown their load" on generating hype for multiplayer. Having the same hype while leaving EA would be desirable but also improbable. TW have always done EA releases but maybe they'd have to ditch that idea. Maybe its a thing that worked in the past but should've stayed in the past. I feel that, especially with multiplayer, riding the first wave of publicity is the biggest one, you have to impress if you want players to stick around. And the hype for BL was as big as it ever was for a TW game.
I don't think Multiplayer will ever recover from what it could have been at the EA release should private servers have been released. However, that is the only way at this point to save it, and while it won't be as big as it could have been (probably around 50-65%) as they have lost a lot of people and faith amongst those who are willing is low, it would be nice if they did it. I disagree with them refusing to do it until EA is done. EA is simply a few words to slap in front of/after the title in order to claim incompetence. There is no difference between EA and the release aside from a regularly scheduled update such as the recent updates we have seen. At least, that's what I think will happen. I doubt much will change in the day-to-day playing of Bannerlord in terms of updates from EA and updates from regular, the only difference being a big update for the release. Release the Private Servers now and let people get to work. That's 10 months (assuming they release in June, and seeing as TW pushes everything back as far as they can, I imagine they will take Q2 to mean June) modders won't be able to do their thing. Which saddens me. Imagine how much progress could be done between now and Q2.

They've said in past dev responses that some features have been taken out because it was to "complex" but modders can take that same feature and implement it. I'm not sure when I'll truly get back into this game. MP is dead and SP is still lacking in features that even Warband had.
Bannerlord Online, with a small dev team (pretty sure just that Russian guy) achieved not only co-op, but a massive MMO. TW said after 10 years of development co-op was impossible. That just shows they are either incompetent, unwilling or simply don't want to implement things the fans want. Which one doesn't really matter, all three are pretty pathetic.

there was also instances of devs saying "i could code that in a week but management won't aprove anything complex".
That is chaos. That is the belly of the beast.

You will vomit out all the hatred festering whitin your darkened bowels of doom, and learn to appreciate the powers of Soon.
Lucius, you are welcome to post anywhere on the forum, but I highly recommend you stay off this thread to avoid being bullied. There have been people with far better arguments in favor of bannerlord on this thread that have been completely shot down. Judging from your previous posts and what I've seen you reply to on threads across the Bannerlord subforum, your level of argumentation is just not on par and you will get shredded by some of the posters here. Please for the love of god keep your drivel away for your own sake.
 

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
That's what they're working on. Jamming the full game inside their chosen minimum pc spec and keeping it stable is their primary objective. We rarely give them credit for that and demand all sorts of features that might make it impossible. Hopefully modders will add such icing to the cake as they don't have to cater to TW's minimum pc spec.
I don't understand much of the matter so bear with me:

I luckily own a decent PC now. But at launch I noticed how horribly BL was optimized when playing it on my old potatoe. Even with small battle scale and low graphics I could barely run it even though games like Witcher 3 and even Kingdom Come Deliverance worked kind of fine. (I don't claim the comparison is fair, but I don't know what else to compare it too.)

As far as I understand things the big PC killer in the game is the big battles. Both graphically and in terms of AI (for a thousand agents) they are very demanding. And no matter how much polishing you do, battle size will still be the bottleneck I believe. I think it is good that TW wants to polish the game more so more people have access to lare battle sizes but I don't think this clashes with the features a lot of people (me included) want. Most of which are campaign oriented and fairly undemanding on the PC I believe. I mean Crusader Kings (to bring the by many dreaded exemple) runs decently on a medium to medium-low spec PC and stuff like we see in Crusader Kings (deeper character trait system, relationships between characters, diplomacy, laws and stuff like that) people want to see in BL.

The only thing I could possibly agree on is more intelligent battle AI. Though I don't know enough of the matter wether this really is a huge problem because in total war games this doesn't seem to be the case.

Another thing that I could let pass is if it is because BL's codebase is such a mess and that every little mechanic is risking the game to overstress PC's. But that doesn't exactly put TW in a good light either.

Am I wrong? Because it seems to me like a bit of a bad excuse telling people the features are too complex because of low spec PC's. As far as I'm aware TW never gave a reasoning why it is "too complex".
 

Roy1012

Duke
As far as I understand things the big PC killer in the game is the big battles. Both graphically and in terms of AI (for a thousand agents) they are very demanding. And no matter how much polishing you do, battle size will still be the bottleneck I believe. I think it is good that TW wants to polish the game more so more people have access to lare battle sizes but I don't think this clashes with the features a lot of people (me included) want. Most of which are campaign oriented and fairly undemanding on the PC I believe. I mean Crusader Kings (to bring the by many dreaded exemple) runs decently on a medium to medium-low spec PC and stuff like we see in Crusader Kings (deeper character trait system, relationships between characters, diplomacy, laws and stuff like that) people want to see in BL.
What's the solution? Smaller battles with more troops spawning in waves? Perhaps multiple "battles" going on, you are only part of one section of the battle, while there are other battles going on. When you are finished, you join in with the other one, if it is still going on. Or something like that. I don't know if there's really a good solution out there for this.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
I was not aware this was an issue. Is it a widespread one? I understand Warband took communities by a storm due to its relatively low specs for the time (even more so now), literally anyone with a potato could run it. However with Bannerlord, only a handful of guys are unable to run it within my community of over 200 people; perhaps this is just a bad sample?
BL's PBR graphics and cloth simulations depend on a pc's GPU. However, inverse kinematics animations, agent AI, combat calculations, party AI and campaign logic are all CPU intense. Scenes and the main map all need to be loaded into less than 6Gb of RAM.
Thousands of parties on the campaign map are forcing unpredictable sandbox event checks and calculations that need to be spread over time to avoid overloading a minimum spec CPU.
FPS stuttering and crashes have been campaign map problems as much as in battles. Look at the Technical Support section of these forums to see all the crash and bug reports.

Either way, are modders even able to affect the specs? I'm sure there's always some optimization that can be done, but aren't graphics requirements governed by the game itself?
Modders will add more complex features that TW are refusing to implement because modders won't care about optimising game calculations and graphics loads to run on minimum spec pcs. They'll build features because they're cool even though they're expensive vs optimisation. TW have to work within their minimum spec. According to Steam's stats 42.6% of current gamer pcs have less than 16Gb of RAM. Equally, a console port will not be possible unless the game fits into 8Gb (just over the 6Gb minimum pc spec). Modders will build features that only part of the customer base can implement and will rely on hardware progress over time to eventually open up their mod to those currently playing on potatoes.
As far as I understand things the big PC killer in the game is the big battles.
It's one of them. However, gamers with high spec rigs are already looking to maximise battle size and hitting the engine ceiling of 2,048 independent agents per scene (horses count as separate agents as they have independent ai from their riders). 2,048 is a power of two number, which suggests that any increase above that would need the engine to stretch to 4,096, which may not be possible.
 
Last edited:

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
What's the solution? Smaller battles with more troops spawning in waves? Perhaps multiple "battles" going on, you are only part of one section of the battle, while there are other battles going on. When you are finished, you join in with the other one, if it is still going on. Or something like that. I don't know if there's really a good solution out there for this.
The first one is how M&B does it and I really don't like it since it gives the side which is closer to its spawnpoint a massive advantage. It also is immersion breaking.

The second one I thought about too. I think this would be a much better alternative. Having a battle being fought in flanks (left flank, center, right flank), both parties setting up their parts of the battle line, both of them deciding which part of the line will fight first and then it is diced out which one of the two will start (taking in to consideration the tactics skill). The flank which won would be able to give support to the flank next to it in the next battle.This could be a pretty neat solution I think.

But even just breaking down the armies in their percentages to match the battlesize would be a better solution than having them come in in waves I think.
 
Last edited:

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
I think breaking up a battle in several battles is tedious. The reinforcement waves variant of Mount and Blade is better, IF the reinforcing troops keep coming continuously and not in large chunks, and with the spawn points dynamically moved far enough from both combatants to disable defensive spawn camping.
Another, quicker alternative is to have a single battle between representative samples of troops and no reinforcements. The results of the battle are then combined with the autocalc of the rest of the troops, which can be influenced by the battle outcome. So, a player victory might beat the odds if they are not overwhelming (in which case the player's battle is won, but the overall battle is lost).
Similar to this, except for the autocalc:
But even just breaking down the armies in their percentages to match the battlesize would be a better solution than having them come in in waves I think.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Another, quicker alternative is to have a single battle between representative samples of troops and no reinforcements. The results of the battle are then combined with the autocalc of the rest of the troops, which can be influenced by the battle outcome. So, a player victory might beat the odds if they are not overwhelming (in which case the player's battle is won, but the overall battle is lost).
I can only see this being *extremely* unsatisfying to pretty much everyone. Especially in cases where you would have actually won the battle if you were to repeat the fights several time to go through all the troops in the armies.
 

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
I think breaking up a battle in several battles is tedious. The reinforcement waves variant of Mount and Blade is better, IF the reinforcing troops keep coming continuously and not in large chunks, and with the spawn points dynamically moved far enough from both combatants to disable defensive spawn camping.
Another, quicker alternative is to have a single battle between representative samples of troops and no reinforcements. The results of the battle are then combined with the autocalc of the rest of the troops, which can be influenced by the battle outcome. So, a player victory might beat the odds if they are not overwhelming (in which case the player's battle is won, but the overall battle is lost).
Similar to this, except for the autocalc:
It can be tedious certainly. Both the flank system and the percentile breakdown would need to be combined.
I think an important battle with 4000 soldiers in total fought in several stages (the way I proposed it would be three but two might work as well) could be quite epic instead of tedious. But this also depends on what kind of player you are and wether the battle itself is enjoyable or just brainless grind.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
But this also depends on what kind of player you are
This is crucial. Taleworlds made the game with quick action battles for the broad base of casual players. You are on the other side of players' spectrum, willing to invest time and meaning if the game is immersive and the battles are satisfying. There's no satisfying both, I'm afraid, and that's how we have Bannerlord and not Warband 2.0. At least I don't see a solution that would be fine for both kinds of players (making everyone unhappy doesn't count!).
I'd also like to play an epic battle for an hour, instead of several minutes, but not many people do and those people voted me out with their wallets. Hipster life is sad.
 

mujadaddy

Regular
WB
What's the solution?
Ah, what's the goal?

I tell ya what, about 2% of the battlefields in game would be used in the real world. Many of the maps have utterly crap terrain no sane commander would make his troops MUSTER on, much less FIGHT on. Using the real world as a guide*, decisive field battles are vanishingly rare; so rare, most of them have names. There is no MANEUVER phase before the engagement: our forces are single points, which makes them seem different from what they are in battles. Hell, parties never STOP, they just slow down at night.

So I think the issue is one of abstraction and conception, apart from insufficiencies in the AI.

*always handy for simulations!
 

cyllan

Recruit
You all pre-ordered
why did you pre-order?
YOU NEVER PRE-ORDER
Now they have your money, they can stay in EA for as long as they want, and use YOUR MONEY to get more advertisement and more pre-orders
spending the absolute minimum of cash in development
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight
:shock: so... they're standing in the middle of a giant melee until they get hit... on purpose?!?!
You all pre-ordered
why did you pre-order?
YOU NEVER PRE-ORDER
Now they have your money, they can stay in EA for as long as they want, and use YOUR MONEY to get more advertisement and more pre-orders
spending the absolute minimum of cash in development
Buying an EA game is not the same as pre ordering and I would say their EA description was a little bit misleading...

They also never updated their EA description as it seems, they still claim the game will be in EA for around one year:

Approximately how long will this game be in Early Access?

“While we do not have a set date for a full release at this moment in time, we expect that the game will be in early access for around a year.

Of course you can argue that Q1/2022 (so about 2 years) is still something around 1 year but... :grin:

The hype they created also was huge and as a Warband fan there was no way for me to dodge this bullet. But TW is only able to pull off this move one time, never again any EA game from TW for me.
 
Last edited:
I would say their EA description was a little bit misleading...
"A little bit" misleading?! It was very misleading.

"The early access version is very much stable and playable, players can expect to run into some obscure bugs and other issues while playing that we intend to locate and fix before the full release."

The game was not stable, and the bugs were not obscure by a long shot. The bugs are still not obscure. The EA description implies a very different reality than the one we got.
 
You will vomit out all the hatred festering whitin your darkened bowels of doom, and learn to appreciate the powers of Soon.
giphy.gif


There's a time and place for this... It's not here.
"A little bit" misleading?! It was very misleading.

"The early access version is very much stable and playable, players can expect to run into some obscure bugs and other issues while playing that we intend to locate and fix before the full release."

The game was not stable, and the bugs were not obscure by a long shot. The bugs are still not obscure. The EA description implies a very different reality than the one we got.
giphy.gif
 

Roy1012

Duke
"The early access version is very much stable and playable, players can expect to run into some obscure bugs and other issues while playing that we intend to locate and fix before the full release."

The game was not stable, and the bugs were not obscure by a long shot. The bugs are still not obscure. The EA description implies a very different reality than the one we got.
Everything about it was misleading lmao. The game is barely playable from a enjoyment perspective (not in terms of the game's engine being incomplete and literally unable to be used, at least that works) and mutliplayer is absolute crap. Even if I wanted to play their garbage gamemodes, I couldn't, because the multiplayer servers are crashing every 10 seconds. And they call that very stable? That it is nearly done with a few bugs? It's more bugs than it is done. And the whole "it'll be around a year". If you consider 2 and a quarter years "around a year", then sure. Otherwise, it is misleading and false advertising if I've ever seen it myself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom