-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Bannerlord was a grift
- Thread starter Roy1012
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
- Status
For mostly SP games, yeah. People play them (average) 40-60 hours. There are of course a few exceptions but players putting down a mostly SP title after a few months is as normal as a shoe with laces in it.
Why not take into consideration the state of the game, that it is early access? I'd understand if this were the Witcher or Assassin's Creed, but it isn't. It's an empty EA game, and people who left 50 hours in a year ago have no idea what the game state is right now.
Because there is no indication that Early Access has any effect on playtime or active playercount.
Maybe I'm not explaining myself well here. Why do you think that it doesn't? The argument that people who leave EA games do it for exactly the same reason as complete/non-EA games or that there isn't a difference between them is a bit much. And that still doesn't change that players who experience EA and make a review but haven't checked in for a year or half of that do not represent in, any capacity, the quality of the EA title presently. So why should anyone consider reviews from a year ago from people who haven't touched it since, under a vastly different game condition and context, as a present day view of the game state?
It's for that reason it'd be good for Steam to enforce review updates when EA titles either complete or at least every six months.
why not shove that nonsense. it's been 11 ****ing years. You can build a working game in 11 years or you can refund people frankly the game is a mess the mutiplayer has been broken for ages now
Because I looked at the trends in player activity for EA titles vs. full releases (via SteamCharts) and there was almost no difference. The biggest difference I could find was a relatively modest bump (similar to DLC) for titles that transitioned to full release but even that tapered off after a month or two. Then to sanity check I looked for any articles or papers about the player activity in EA compared to full release but found nothing.
That doesn't mean there aren't other reasons for the drops though. You can't say because other games have dips too so then it must mean there's no concern for Bannerlord's constant dips. I guess we just don't agree on this at all. lol
There isn't a way to settle this one way or another, isn't it? There's simply no exact evidence either way.
We could probably pool some money and pay for a player survey to settle this.
Or even ask Taleworlds if they still have that focus group locked up in their basement.
We could probably pool some money and pay for a player survey to settle this.
Or even ask Taleworlds if they still have that focus group locked up in their basement.
This is nonsense. While it is true that people who played a year ago don’t know the state of the game right now, the fact that a year ago they were mad with the games lack of progress and we are still waiting for release is just indicative of the problem. It’s a problem that the game wasn’t ready in 2020, sure, but it’s an even bigger problem this year. Every day the game is trash exponentially adds to the embarrassment.
BL's SP isn't trash it's incomplete. Most TW players are SP. I assume TW wanted to rebalance that by making Captain mode to entice new players into MP. Captain mode depends upon a class system. Therefore I assume it was also imposed on Skirmish to allow ex-SP players to progress easily from Captain mode to Skirmish. I assume that is also why they made the disastrous decision to attempt to use the same balance for Captain and Skirmish during most of the Beta and EA. I doubt Warband MP game modes are on TW's adgenda, you probably won't get those until they release custom servers.
I don't think you entirely understand my point there. That's part of what I'm bringing that up for, that and those who positive reviews (separate from those who didn't like it a year ago) with a "it's a great start" or so and so, have no indication whatsoever the state of the game a year later if they haven't touched it since. And yet I'm supposed to go through 1yr/6m reviews for people who haven't played since and take their reviews to mean the state of the game now is good? Basically, I was trying to say that acting as if reviews prove anything without a shadow of a doubt, especially for a early access game like this, is just ridiculous.
TW:
Last edited:
It makes Bannerlord perfectly normal in that regard; that's why it isn't a concern. It doesn't say anything about the game's quality just to see that players put it down after three months, if it is a mostly SP title. DLCs buck that trend a bit, usually. But when essentially every SP game has the same drop-off in active players -- regardless of EA or full release, excellent reviews or trash-tier -- it does point to the underlying issue being something other than quality or completeness.
Which is why I said it sucks for us as consumers. In a better world, good games would have activity curves like a shallow decline over a few months (or a year) because new players keep buying while terrible games would never get sales in the first place. But we live in a world where even terrible games break sales records because gaming is based on hype.
Last edited:
Which is why they are so hesitant to release the private servers. They know the second they do, their trash gamemodes they worked soooo hard on will never be played, and the only servers that will be populated will be on battle, TDM and siege, assuming the private servers allow for them to disable the class system and implement a warband-like one. Perhaps a mod will have to be made for this, I don’t know. Either way, it’s long been a theory of mine that because TW thought they would get a huge base of players because of the multiplayer, and seeing it backfire so badly, they just are throwing in the towel on multiplayer and just don’t care anymore. I would say they are not releasing private servers out of spite because of how badly the MP community has treated them.
I doubt that's true. IIRC the MP community has always been toxic and TW must be used to it by now. If MP servers were stable why are they crashing so often? They clearly need to solve that before repackaging their currently unstable code into custom servers.
Warband and NW's MP communities were not as toxic as Bannerlord's is. Yeah, I wouldn't say those two games were necessarily not without their fair share of toxicity, but Bannerlord? I think it's on another level. How many threads are there in the MP section where someone says "I got muted for no reason" and then it comes to light that they used an abundance of racial slurs or whatever.
With solid data, which I have. Average daily users in April 2020 was a little over 6,500 on the forum. By December it had dwindled like the game's population to just under 1,300 (an 80% decrease). Interestingly, that is also a little lower than February of that year (~1600).
Steamcharts shows the average players in the month of April 2020 at more than 113,000. Average forum users for that month equate to ~6% of the players of the game. I would speculate that the total number of unique players in that month is considerably higher but dropped off hard, as the game launched into EA at the beginning of the month and many probably did not stick for more than a week or two. There was a loss in average players of nearly 82,000 in May. For November & December of that year, the average dipped to its lowest point, below 10,000. The active forum population proportion of this number jumped to 13%, but that is still a small proportion. We could get deeper into the weeds about how many forum members were just here for Warband vs. how many were interested in/played Bannerlord, but I think my point is proven even with the generous assumption that all forum users had an interest in BL.
The forum is statistically significant, and has never been so small as to be insignificant. It is also a platform with a high concentration of dedicated, long-term fans who have been with the franchise since before BL. However, we are in fact a small portion of the player base.
the context is that the early game was less buggy and worked better there was no OP problems cept for cav everything had equal weaknesses and strengths, then they literally nerfed most of the problems into existance and put that buggy bs on archery.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
