Bannerlord Worries

Currently viewing this thread:

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
I still do not get why they would sell the EA at full price since they are selling an unfinished game.

 

LeChat

Master Knight
WBM&BWF&SVC
Younes123 said:
I still do not get why they would sell the EA at full price since they are selling an unfinished game.
Because you will have no more to pay when the game is released.
 

Younes

Master Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
LeChat said:
Younes123 said:
I still do not get why they would sell the EA at full price since they are selling an unfinished game.
Because you will have no more to pay when the game is released.

Having games like these have always been a risk to getting dropped by devs, or just end as bad games. Studios can just run away with the money with unfinished games.
 
Let's put some fake numbers and see:

Released game = finished game (more or less certain about it) -> 50 money
Pre-access to the game = finished game some days/weeks before (plus bonus content sometimes) -> 50 money + 20? money = 70?money
EA game = unfinished game + pre-access to the game + finished game when (if) released -> 30? money + 20?money + 0? = 50? money

The math behind is just "normal" I guess. If you trust the devs then you're pretty sure about ending up with a great game. Maybe you can even play an active part in adjusting some game mechanics in the process, which would not be addressed otherwise.

I don't see nothing particularly wrong. Maybe they can lower the price a bit for the "trust" we gave them, as if it was in a kickstarter campaign and you buy one of the first N copies, but that's it.
 

LeChat

Master Knight
WBM&BWF&SVC
Younes123 said:
LeChat said:
Younes123 said:
I still do not get why they would sell the EA at full price since they are selling an unfinished game.
Because you will have no more to pay when the game is released.

Having games like these have always been a risk to getting dropped by devs, or just end as bad games. Studios can just run away with the money with unfinished games.
Yes, sure, Taleworlds will run away with our money. Another argument ?

I see it this way : TW is kind enough to give us the possibility to play the game before it is finished because we waited (and blaming them) for years.
 

Callum

Community Manager
In regards to the pricing, we decided that we should just go with one price and leave it for people to decide for themselves if they think it is worth purchasing during EA or if they should hold off until the full release. We certainly don't want to try and entice people in with a lower price point with the aim of making a quick buck. Honestly, we would prefer that you hold on to your cash until you are confident that the game is for you, and if that means waiting until the full release then we would strongly encourage you to wait. 

We decided to go with an EA release because it is something we have quite a lot of experience with and we know that it helps the quality of the final product a great deal. Sure, there will be times that we might disagree with feedback for any number of reasons (sometimes, as is the case with some of the beta feedback, it is because we can see the full picture and might be aware of some connected issue that needs to be addressed first, or perhaps just because we know what our long term goals and plans are but aren't willing to share them right now).

In terms of content, the EA release will have plenty of stuff for you to do, including all of the core features and mechanics that you would expect of a Mount & Blade game. We would refer to things that we plan to add later to be supporting features that aren't essential parts of the core game loops. As we get closer to the EA release we will share more info about what to expect and what will come later. And again, we would say that if you have any doubts hold on to your cash, watch some videos from content creators and make an informed decision on whether or not to buy the game.
 

LeChat

Master Knight
WBM&BWF&SVC
Shut-up-and-take-my-money-min.jpg
 
Wise and polite words.

I also think we shouldn't come to a point where Callum or a tw member has to come here and tell everyone the obvious only to remark we're free to do things. I feel a little bit embarassed.

However, keep up the great work! Personally I'm 100% sure to buy it in early access.
 
TheItalianoX said:
Wise and polite words.

I also think we shouldn't come to a point where Callum or a tw member has to come here and tell everyone the obvious only to remark we're free to do things. I feel a little bit embarrassed.

However, keep up the great work! Personally I'm 100% sure to buy it in early access.

I too am now 100% sure now!

Still, in regards to being embarrassed, why? There were many legitimate doubts and questions, and now that Callum has enlightened us of the details, I feel safer knowing that they have committed to schedule they plan to complete, and aren't purposefully dumbing down the experience for newer players.
He is 100% right that because we only know little on the overall experience, the chances of the butterfly effect affecting other key features with the removal/addition of another is reduced if they leave completed features as is.

That being said, I believe there are actual concerns that need to be addressed such as formations and horses, but now that I personally know that their reluctance to removing features is because it conflicts with other aspects, I am completely on board.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
JustinTime49 said:
Breezy Tee said:
JustinTime49 said:

OH NO YOU DIDN'T! hahahaha

We've got an ETA, please quit the whining for now, leave it to when the game is actually in EA and judge it after the fact.

My only complaint about TW regarding M&B2 BL has always been a lack of ETA or even a somewhat unofficial guess of an ETA. That translates into absolute lack of Deadlines, which translates into Infinite Loop Development: "do stuff, stuff gives new ideas, remove stuff, do new stuff, new stuff give new ideas, remove new stuff, do new new stuff..." You get the point.

As for quality, M&B turned out pretty good, and it has been one of the pioneer games to actually use Early Access since ever, and it was done right. If you are worried about that, for real, you're but a fool, if not I'd say you're a troll

Ok, where to start.

If the only problem you had with the current state of the game was the lack of ETA, thats fine! If everything checks out on your bucket list gameplay wise, thats fine! I don't think its fair to call people 'foolish' for worrying about the current state of gameplay though, especially when many concerns voiced throughout the forums have been confirmed to be features.

Take the class system for example, regardless of the continuous negativity towards the its implementation, TW have decided to stick with the system, to the dismay of many. I could go on with formations, encyclopedia... but you get the point. Your opinions aren't fact, which is why this thread is called 'Bannerlord Worries'.

"As for quality, M&B turned out pretty good" I more or less agree, and i'm sure bannerlord will be even better content wise, but the irony is still present(if you bothered to read the point of the OP anyway).

Years of like you said, infinite loop of development, claiming to release a full complete product only to sell off an incomplete game at full price so that the community can help fix it sounds awfully desperate in the context of potential development hell.

I understand, though I've been warning that this was a risk with the way they were conducting business during development, I had no inside information, just observable facts that would come to general knowledge over the years. I've said more than once that this model of game development (no-deadline free-for-all do whatever you feel like doing) is basically asking for trouble, so much so that Bioware has been doing the same for years and they're pretty effed right now, and they are waaaaay bigger than TW with better financial security and a much larger "mistake" tolerant funding... Once I've seen that BL is actually going into EA I've felt better, that means Deadlines are being implemented and they have objective goals, it's not a complete chaos anymore, and that's good. Given their capabilities, this translates into a much higher roof for the quality of the game itself. As you yourself have stated, opinions over features are opinions, not actual quality measures, that being said, we should cut them a slack and wait, anything that doesn't work will be remove, subbed or improved most likely, but if they wish ti bet into features, that's in their own right, and I fully support it, given that each and every single one of those features have quality in them, regardless of nostalgic conservative ideas of keeping the game the same as M&B.

I've always felt that the lack of specificity towards character builds were awkward in M&B base game, I do, however, understand the wanting of making our own builds to be anything, but usually that takes away from the experience, so having classes isn't a big deal, it may (or may not) actually make BL better than M&B just with a sad little feature like that tbh.... If it was me I'd actually make it possible to have each and every common sense build variation possible within said system, and I'd also slap in extra options for "realistic" builds, like Archery being based off strength, while sword lovers being basically dexterity. Giving more attention to actual weapons of war and less towards swords (weapons of Hollywood). So on so forth. They were a step in this direction with base M&B, if they push further with it it'll make the game quite unique.

Realistic examples would be simple to give too, Crossbows should not be attached to any attribute, instead they are the weapons for the weak and less trained, so much so that this was the only reason for crossbows to actually stay relevant throughout the entirety of the middle ages (since they were created for the first time). This is just one isolated example, but there are more, today it's easier to find information about that due to the growth in HEMA interest plus the amount of content creators who are in love with medieval times. In fact, you can learn everything about what was actually real during middle ages in a few days watching videos from these people. Hollywood, which was the inspiration for most video games, is a chaotic bs mess regarding these themes, in fact there are absolutely zero films that portrait the middle ages even slightly correct, everything is an absurd fiction... So much so that there are even documentaries that are considered ridiculous by most of the community who studies these things. So giving the opportunity to turn your character into a specialist of sorts doesn't sound bad at all.
 
Breezy Tee said:
I understand, though I've been warning that this was a risk with the way they were conducting business during development, I had no inside information, just observable facts that would come to general knowledge over the years. I've said more than once that this model of game development (no-deadline free-for-all do whatever you feel like doing) is basically asking for trouble, so much so that Bioware has been doing the same for years and they're pretty effed right now, and they are waaaaay bigger than TW with better financial security and a much larger "mistake" tolerant funding... Once I've seen that BL is actually going into EA I've felt better, that means Deadlines are being implemented and they have objective goals, it's not a complete chaos anymore, and that's good. Given their capabilities, this translates into a much higher roof for the quality of the game itself. As you yourself have stated, opinions over features are opinions, not actual quality measures, that being said, we should cut them a slack and wait, anything that doesn't work will be remove, subbed or improved most likely, but if they wish ti bet into features, that's in their own right, and I fully support it, given that each and every single one of those features have quality in them, regardless of nostalgic conservative ideas of keeping the game the same as M&B.

I've always felt that the lack of specificity towards character builds were awkward in M&B base game, I do, however, understand the wanting of making our own builds to be anything, but usually that takes away from the experience, so having classes isn't a big deal, it may (or may not) actually make BL better than M&B just with a sad little feature like that tbh.... If it was me I'd actually make it possible to have each and every common sense build variation possible within said system, and I'd also slap in extra options for "realistic" builds, like Archery being based off strength, while sword lovers being basically dexterity. Giving more attention to actual weapons of war and less towards swords (weapons of Hollywood). So on so forth. They were a step in this direction with base M&B, if they push further with it it'll make the game quite unique.

Realistic examples would be simple to give too, Crossbows should not be attached to any attribute, instead they are the weapons for the weak and less trained, so much so that this was the only reason for crossbows to actually stay relevant throughout the entirety of the middle ages (since they were created for the first time). This is just one isolated example, but there are more, today it's easier to find information about that due to the growth in HEMA interest plus the amount of content creators who are in love with medieval times. In fact, you can learn everything about what was actually real during middle ages in a few days watching videos from these people. Hollywood, which was the inspiration for most video games, is a chaotic bs mess regarding these themes, in fact there are absolutely zero films that portrait the middle ages even slightly correct, everything is an absurd fiction... So much so that there are even documentaries that are considered ridiculous by most of the community who studies these things. So giving the opportunity to turn your character into a specialist of sorts doesn't sound bad at all.

I really like your take on implementation of the system, as it fits with realism and immersion while also being fun. Ik we should wait until things develop fully, but I don't see the harm in expressing premature worries on the current state. For example, my personal gripe with the new system is the reasoning for stripping the lack of progression in MP. Especially the way skirmish and CM function currently, there is very little desire to pick a 'peasant' or 'rabble' over knights and huskarls. I don't disagree that there is quality in them, but at least currently, its implementation feels like a step down from Warband. To be more specific, assuming faction models are increased from warband(obv yes), then its a shame that players won't be able to experience and try them out, restricted to 7 different classes with very limited customizations.

As for crossbows, though they were generally fielded by untrained, fodder type units, there are a multitude of expert crossbow users such as the genoese mercs. To treat them as simply an early game weapon would severely limit gameplay options, as well as lessen their threat. With calradia representing global peoples into a condensed land, having vlandian crossbows(the only crossbow faction) treated as weak or inferior, especially in scenarios where they would be preferred would be a mistake IMO.

One think I was hoping for in M&B(SP) was slower infantry combat. Of course, it would still have to be fun and viable, but having the AI make use of their shields more than swords would allow the processing and progression of a battle. Whether it be an implementation of a delay before the next attack, or simply the increased chance of AI blocking a blow, making use of tactics and positioning archers in a flanking position to deal most of the damage(like in real life) I thought would make battles feel a lot more engaging. In warband, while some engagements would result in just winning by a threat, the actual battle would only be a chaotic mess. Even just having the AI decide devastating blows such as a heavy cav charge to the unprotected archers which shift the battle, or players taking advantage of enemy commanders' mistake of separating inf division from archer and cav support would make battles that much more satisfying. Even so, the battles in BL look fine, although once again I think they really need to look at formation engagements(at least from the gameplay shown).
 

Cordor

Baron
WBNW
My biggest complaint from just observing what they are trying to do with the multiplayer, is make this into an esport thing and failing at it. This won't be a big competitive game anyways and their attempts seems to just be souring the overall experience.

The thing that made Warband have a competitive scene is that you have a natural sandbox of a multiplayer experience, everyone has a playstyle, everyone can make their own layout and build, everyone can play the way they want, which is fun, which is why mordhau has the same custom layout option, because its fun

No one will play your competitive game if it's not fun. The competitive scene was born because the game was fun and had a space for a variety of play styles.

Make the game fun, let the competitive players create a competitive scene, then mold the esport/competitive aspect around it with their help.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Cordor said:
My biggest complaint from just observing what they are trying to do with the multiplayer, is make this into an esport thing and failing at it. This won't be a big competitive game anyways and their attempts seems to just be souring the overall experience.

The thing that made Warband have a competitive scene is that you have a natural sandbox of a multiplayer experience, everyone has a playstyle, everyone can make their own layout and build, everyone can play the way they want, which is fun, which is why mordhau has the same custom layout option, because its fun

No one will play your competitive game if it's not fun. The competitive scene was born because the game was fun and had a space for a variety of play styles.

Make the game fun, let the competitive players create a competitive scene, then mold the esport/competitive aspect around it with their help.

Not entirely, all games that have this flavor to them in the beginning end up with 1 or 2 effective builds forever and ever. Thing about esport games is that META takes over everything else. "So you like this gun? Cool, it's worthless..." 10v10 ak-47, cool gun thrown into oblivion. I doubt WB was any different, even not having any experience in the MP, I'm a former pro in Counter-Strike, and the logic behind E-Sport games is one that doesn't include fun as a factor, it's effectiveness from the ground up, plus full time job hours on training the game... Pro-players are not really having fun, they are working, and since META + having an Edge are top 1 priorities, exploits become a focus too.

They should make their competitive system very clear and as simple as possible, then improve on it from feedback, like any esport game does (when it is to be taken seriously).

JustinTime49 said:
As for crossbows, though they were generally fielded by untrained, fodder type units, there are a multitude of expert crossbow users such as the genoese mercs. To treat them as simply an early game weapon would severely limit gameplay options, as well as lessen their threat. With calradia representing global peoples into a condensed land, having vlandian crossbows(the only crossbow faction) treated as weak or inferior, especially in scenarios where they would be preferred would be a mistake IMO.

My suggestion isn't to make Crossbows early game weapons, it is to make them have zero requirements to use, I've said nothing about having specialization skills for it. In fact that's how I see the "easy to use" weapons, including spears, and even swords (to some extent, swords are quite light and easy to wield, despite being very ineffective in the hands of untrained people). You give the access to anyone, but make it so that one can go further and further with it, becoming better over time. Though, realistic gaps should exist too, no matter how well trained in swordsmanship a guy is, if he's facing a spear, he is fked. Same goes for Crossbows, which have laughable reloading speeds, and against a trained longbow-man are almost useless (on field battles of course)... It's just like asking for actual principles and logic within the game... I wouldn't really want to deploy crossbows against heavy cavalry, instead I'd employ them in defensive sieges, for instance. If I had notoriously well trained crossbowmen who had "reloading" organization (one bloke reloads while the other shoots behind a deployed shield) then I'd see crossbows as a viable option for an open field battle... So on so forth... Though I doubt BL will go into THAT level of depth...

I don't expect MUCH from BL, just an ordinary improvement over the predecessor, and for me that's okay
 

reapo19

Recruit
Honestly, if M&B didn't have a mod community, the game would be out already.

Everything they put in the game is constantly be reworked to make sure that it is moddable by the mod community. So I don't mind the reduced or missing features for EA. I know what the game is going to be and that is worth supporting by buying the game in EA.
 

Eleantil

Recruit
In terms of content, the EA release will have plenty of stuff for you to do, including all of the core features and mechanics that you would expect of a Mount & Blade game. We would refer to things that we plan to add later to be supporting features that aren't essential parts of the core game loops. As we get closer to the EA release we will share more info about what to expect and what will come later. And again, we would say that if you have any doubts hold on to your cash, watch some videos from content creators and make an informed decision on whether or not to buy the game.
i ve seen the posts , the only thing that should bother us right now is one i think .
They have not input in the EA some features and mechanics in the game that maybe cant be imput now because they interfere with the game flow ,i hope they will be later on in the game and not scrapped .
In my opinion not the combat at its current state nor the price is of great matter if the above happens .
 

The Luminary

Sergeant
I would put expectations low for EA. It might be 6 months-1 year after EA before a good version of bannerlord or a mod of it is created.
 

rhyzking

Recruit
I think this games going to be so different from the previous titles that i will not like it just like the newest sid meires game.
 
i won't be buying this game. Its been too long and I can smell the disaster a mile away. They should have got investment years ago and gone full time. This is clearly a worn out hobby project. Most of the fans have grown up and probably have full time jobs and babies (just like the developers). They will run away with the profits (or whatever amount of money they can relaim for their lost time). Its a very unfortunate ending.
 
Top Bottom