@Phantom425
The problem isn't that the game is still in EA or that even that the development is too slow (which it is), but the fact that TW are actively making
design decisions which go against what a Mount & Blade game is and what it should be.
Anything that is suggested to the devs that was in the previous M&B games is rejected as being "too complex" or not part of their "vision" and what "features" they do add in are either broken, half arsed, or both. The barebones basics of the core gameplay like sieges are barely even working, nevermind actual features.
The fact that they refuse to acknowledge that people want these aspects of M&B in the game instead of making it a boring arcadey battle simulator is why a lot of people have come to the conclusion that the people in charge of making these decisions are out of touch and/or just don't care and are having the dev team do the minimal amount of work to just get it over with and reap the sales is why it feels like a grift.
Giving feedback after a patch does nothing for us seeing as we're completely ignored, just look at the multiplayer scene. How long did it take for us to get ridiculous crush-throughs removed?
On top of that the development during this EA has been so barren that every tiny patch that adds in some new helmets, a new UI page and if we're lucky a poorly thought out feature that modders have done better. Doesn't stop these from being heralded as
massive new updates. It just feels so pathetic.
If you're one of those people excitedly supporting something along the lines of an 'elephant DLC' or are okay with them seemingly planning on post-release paid content, especially with how barebones the singleplayer is atm, then I'd bet you're also one of the people who would see nothing wrong with a paradox style DLC policy for this game too.
I forgot what else I was gonna say, so here's Saint Jiub instead
Also I can't find any of your posts which isn't TL;DR btw