• 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.

Beta Patch Notes e1.6.1

Users who are viewing this thread

Brocephus

Sergeant
Grossly harsh, but too funny. Consider this a theft for future reuse.

Thanks for saving it for posterity. It got deleted and they issued a warning for hurt fee fees.

The truth hurts sometimes, TW. You are a decade into this, almost a year and a half into EA and a plethora of core features are not working, missing, or have a shoddy implementation.
 

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
You are a decade into this, almost a year and a half into EA and a plethora of core features are not working, missing, or have a shoddy implementation.
While you may be frustrated with certain aspects of the game that's no excuse for posts like that. Constructive criticism is good and I welcome it but posting stuff that holds no value while being a deterrent to any devs wishing to engage with our community here is a no-go.
 

Gandamula

Sergeant at Arms
And what about the inventory loading times?it's better or still taking 10 seconds for load every itens?
 

TheShermanator

Sergeant
While you may be frustrated with certain aspects of the game that's no excuse for posts like that. Constructive criticism is good and I welcome it but posting stuff that holds no value while being a deterrent to any devs wishing to engage with our community here is a no-go.
With respect (and sympathy for what must be a frustrating experience sorting community signal from community noise), I think this post (and others like it) reflects a fundementally insufficent understanding of what forums are for. This dichotomy is reductive, but in short, forums like this are supposed to have 2 purposes:

1) Provide a venue for players and devs (or their proxies) to exchange information and feedback. This function is important, to be sure, and your post seems to emhasize this function. I would characterize this purpose as necessary-but-not-adequate for a forum. It does not cover fuction (2) below.

2) Provide a venue for players/users to talk to each other about the game. That is to say, for a lot of posts, the intended audience is other users, not really the devs. 90% of the time, when devs (or dev proxies) swat down a post or otherwise express frustration with a post, they neglect to make a disctintion between function (1) and function (2) - and thus fail to consider the extent to which they are not the audience for the message.

_______________________

Within function (2) above, I think it's more than fair for players/users to wonder aloud to each other if any game, especially a game with so many manifest deficiencies after 10 years of dev and 1.5 years of EA, is actually worth the investment of time and effort to provide feedback. None of this inherently has to be insulting to the devs. This is a monumentally huge, ambitious game. It's not crazy for players to wonder (and thus discuss) whether or not TW has fundamentally bit off more than they can chew - whether, in other words, TW is basically competant (in terms of time management, resources, organizational acument, vision, skill, etc.) to execute on such an enormous project. This doesn't have to mean that TW is bad at making games - just maybe not a game this big. In any case, if that's true, then it's not worth it for forum users / game players to keep investing energy providing feedback.

To be clear, I still found the game to be enjoyable despite its many flaws, and I still have hopes that it can be better. I am still posting after all. But it's not crazy for others to wonder aloud to each other if this is still worth it for them.
 

Brocephus

Sergeant
While you may be frustrated with certain aspects of the game that's no excuse for posts like that. Constructive criticism is good and I welcome it but posting stuff that holds no value while being a deterrent to any devs wishing to engage with our community here is a no-go.

As an outside observer, I have stated several times that I do not see the challenges at TW as primarily a dev team problem; it looks mainly like a leadership and planning problem. If I had a criticism of the dev team, it might be that sometimes bugs get in that would not pass a quick desk check if it underwent some ad hoc testing before being pushed.

This is a massively complex system you guys are trying to create and a quite large team is working on it. This requires detailed, well-organized planning and a disciplined execution to a vision. Again, from the outside, it has a number of hallmarks that look like poor, undisciplined, obstinate leadership:

- Recurring bugs.
- "You didn't ask for it, so here it is" features.
- Shoddy implementation of features.
- Obvious severe bugs languishing for extended periods.
- Painfully slow development process.
- No detailed roadmap released.
- Core features missing or broken, including quite a number of features that were implied to be present leading up to EA.
- Weird priorities.

I mostly do not see these as criticisms of the development team so much as top-down problems. It is clear that the dev team has a lot of talent and passion behind it. But you can't just throw a large, talented, and passionate dev team at the problem and expect things to go well.

So, on the whole, I feel that using the phrase "ineptitude" is fair for how this project has been executed, regardless of the talent of the dev team. I could be 100% wrong about my guess but I doubt it.
 
As an outside observer, I have stated several times that I do not see the challenges at TW as primarily a dev team problem; it looks mainly like a leadership and planning problem. If I had a criticism of the dev team, it might be that sometimes bugs get in that would not pass a quick desk check if it underwent some ad hoc testing before being pushed.

This is a massively complex system you guys are trying to create and a quite large team is working on it. This requires detailed, well-organized planning and a disciplined execution to a vision. Again, from the outside, it has a number of hallmarks that look like poor, undisciplined, obstinate leadership:

- Recurring bugs.
- "You didn't ask for it, so here it is" features.
- Shoddy implementation of features.
- Obvious severe bugs languishing for extended periods.
- Painfully slow development process.
- No detailed roadmap released.
- Core features missing or broken, including quite a number of features that were implied to be present leading up to EA.
- Weird priorities.

I mostly do not see these as criticisms of the development team so much as top-down problems. It is clear that the dev team has a lot of talent and passion behind it. But you can't just throw a large, talented, and passionate dev team at the problem and expect things to go well.

So, on the whole, I feel that using the phrase "ineptitude" is fair for how this project has been executed, regardless of the talent of the dev team. I could be 100% wrong about my guess but I doubt it.
+1
While you may be frustrated with certain aspects of the game that's no excuse for posts like that. Constructive criticism is good and I welcome it but posting stuff that holds no value while being a deterrent to any devs wishing to engage with our community here is a no-go.
man up Dejan.
 

MadVader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
from the outside, it has a number of hallmarks that look like poor, undisciplined, obstinate leadership:

- Recurring bugs.
- "You didn't ask for it, so here it is" features.
- Shoddy implementation of features.
- Obvious severe bugs languishing for extended periods.
- Painfully slow development process.
- No detailed roadmap released.
- Core features missing or broken, including quite a number of features that were implied to be present leading up to EA.
- Weird priorities.
You are spot on and I keep saying the same things (as someone professionally interested and familiar with project management and its problems). It's a case study in how not to run a project for many reasons.
 

Brocephus

Sergeant
You are spot on and I keep saying the same things (as someone professionally interested and familiar with project management and its problems). It's a case study in how not to run a project for many reasons.

Project management at this scale is a completely different animal from a few people creating their first indie game.

I know it has been said many times that the modders are not dealing with the same constraints as the dev team, but come on, some modders have been absolutely running circles around this glacial process. To me, it looks a lot of what I refer to as "churn", which just wasted energy tinkering on and fixing of low-value changes. Meanwhile, low-hanging fruit goes unaddressed.

It's like no one is focusing on and pushing for what is important, or at least they aren't consistent or logical about it, and the team is just doing their best to crank *something* out.

I mean, I assume they're going to get there eventually, but good grief.
 
Fixed an issue that caused troops to not use ladders in certain situations.
Nice. Please continue working on solving the issues with sieges.
no longer hardcoded
More of this please. The less hardcoded code we have the more possibilities for different and better mods to appear.

Also I would like to see the issues that beta testers have pointed out and now many keep pointing out resolved, which involve core features of the game, like animations.
The problems with spears, for example.
Problems with spears
  1. Thrusts are too slow. The animation is overextended (especially with one-handed spears) and provide just a little more range, this is useless, I would rather have 10% less range (no overextension) and have a quick recovery to hit again (shorter animation).
  2. If you hit your target or he blocks at short/medium range you should be able to quickly recover to the default stance, that's not happening. What devs could do is enable quicker thrusts at the expense of damage, something like the ability to thrust again even if the recovery animation (returning to idle stance) isn't complete. At half way through the animation if you click to thrust again you would perform a thrust animation but for less damage. Similar to this but for thrusts:
    1. https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/feel-the-hit.434627/#post-9578190
  3. Maneuverability or attack options are very limited, you can't even aim properly, the camera zig zag is what determines the spear position. I would like to see some kind of camera stabilization when thrusting, reduce the camera zig zag and apply the mouse movement to change the spear direction and position.
  4. Shields and weapons easily block thrusts, this is a consequence of what I said above and also because the way hitboxes work, spears are meant to go into gaps, the game doesn't allow that. Having the hiboxes behave like they do for arrows (which, afaik is more accurate) would help to solve this.
    1. https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...chanic-broken-just-a-bit.433746/#post-9565992
    2. Other concept that I would like to see is a "perfect block". Something like what you have in KC Deliverance (but just for thrusts)
      the idea is to have a "short" window of time to click in order to block a thrust with a weapon (not for shields) and if the enemy misses the perfect block you are able to deliver partial damage.
  5. The chance to deliver damage is lower than other weapons and when you hit the damage is low, when on foot. The above should fix that problem. When on horseback there is not that much of an issue, maneuverability is still not optimal but it's more representative of the real world and has other advantages. Still, on horseback I would like to see the weapon maneuverability increased, specially when standing still or at lower speeds it would make sense.
While you may be frustrated with certain aspects of the game that's no excuse for postslike that. Constructive criticism is good and I welcome it but posting stuff that holds no value while being a deterrent to any devs wishing to engage with our community here is a no-go.
If devs feel insulted by some of the comments and discourage them from engaging in the forums then yeah, having that type of warning helps keeping the toxicity away and make us remember devs are human and have feelings too :shifty:, this fulfills the primary function of the forums which should be communicating between players / devs and players so that we can have a better game.

I would say that the majority of toxic criticism comes from the fact that development is going on for around 10 years and not so much from the recent work devs have been putting in, combined with the meming/trolling/sarcasm the internet interactions enable.

I have said this before and I still think that giving us an explanation to the reason why development progress has essentially failed in the earlier days would be a good step in, well.. making people stop whining about it and because some old fans deserve an explanation, imo.
 

Rungsted93

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&SVC
People might be frustrated because we've been waiting for 10 years now and it didn't meet our expectations. One can say that's totally on the players hyping ourselves up, but if one reads the old devblogs a lot of cool things were promised which TW are now suddenly very silent about.

You're 100 people working at this, why in the world is something like adding bases for minor factions something which you can't ?
 

Nodice83

Knight
WBWF&SNWVC
I feel there is nothing new anyone can say about the progress rate. ****positng, frequent rants, the overwhelming verbal frustration... It will not make them work faster or deliver better stuff. It is just not the way they are able to react to criticism - even this civilized & 'welcomed'. It will only make more people miserable and eventually banned for their 'bad unacceptable behavior'. Constant deliberations on their inside mess are further pointless as the game won't change dramatically and future content will be occasionally distributed through 'cash grab DLC's'.

Some day Bannerlord money will melt down and then you will see how much they need your input.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
While ladders work much better now, there are still plenty of moments where units just use one of them. Anyway, it looks like a step forward. Plus enemy archers AI is better now and offensive sieges are a bit harder. Keep the good work. Thanks!
 

Brocephus

Sergeant
I feel there is nothing new anyone can say about the progress rate. ****positng, frequent rants, the overwhelming verbal frustration... It will not make them work faster or deliver better stuff. It is just not the way they are able to react to criticism - even this civilized & 'welcomed'. It will only make more people miserable and eventually banned for their 'bad unacceptable behavior'. Constant deliberations on their inside mess are further pointless as the game won't change dramatically and future content will be occasionally distributed through 'cash grab DLC's'.

Some day Bannerlord money will melt down and then you will see how much they need your input.
Yeah, well, that's just like, your opinion, man.gif.
 

Lukee123

Recruit
Anyone still get frame drops/lags when open menus/inventory/troops etc? Never happened on earlier versions and now its so frustrating with 5-10 second load times when ever opening any in game menu.
 

Rostan

Recruit
Love the changes, scenes and additions. The game looks more polished by the day. Though I now get a bit of stuttering on the campaign map, which I did not with 1.6.
 
Why did you remove the experience gained from crafting items for blacksmiths? Companions now cannot raise the level at all ... The names of the items created at the forge are not saved ...
 

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
With respect (and sympathy for what must be a frustrating experience sorting community signal from community noise), I think this post (and others like it) reflects a fundementally insufficent understanding of what forums are for. This dichotomy is reductive, but in short, forums like this are supposed to have 2 purposes:

1) Provide a venue for players and devs (or their proxies) to exchange information and feedback. This function is important, to be sure, and your post seems to emhasize this function. I would characterize this purpose as necessary-but-not-adequate for a forum. It does not cover fuction (2) below.

2) Provide a venue for players/users to talk to each other about the game. That is to say, for a lot of posts, the intended audience is other users, not really the devs. 90% of the time, when devs (or dev proxies) swat down a post or otherwise express frustration with a post, they neglect to make a disctintion between function (1) and function (2) - and thus fail to consider the extent to which they are not the audience for the message.
A lot of the engagement on our forum occurs between users like yourself and that's not only normal on forums of this size/type but also desirable to enable a mostly self-sustaining community in the long run. And while we of course appreciate discussion to occur around various game-related (and off-topic in the dedicated section) points, this discussion needs to follow a set of rules & guidelines to enable a healthy environment where both developer-to-user and user-to-user interaction can evolve. So if a moderator issues a warning for certain behaviour, it happens with the forum rules in mind & the aforementioned desire to enable a productive and healthy environment for all involved parties.

My post was a response to Brocephus breaking the forum rules within his previous post. I now realize that the inserted quote might have led you to believe that I was referring to that specific quote - if so, that wasn't the case.
As an outside observer, I have stated several times that I do not see the challenges at TW as primarily a dev team problem; it looks mainly like a leadership and planning problem. If I had a criticism of the dev team, it might be that sometimes bugs get in that would not pass a quick desk check if it underwent some ad hoc testing before being pushed.
Your new post is quite different and at least provides reasoning behind your opinion. Coming in and dropping an offensive-one liner as you did was a no-go.
man up Dejan.
Yeah no bud, let's not go down that path.
 

T3CHET

Recruit
A lot of the engagement on our forum occurs between users like yourself and that's not only normal on forums of this size/type but also desirable to enable a mostly self-sustaining community in the long run. And while we of course appreciate discussion to occur around various game-related (and off-topic in the dedicated section) points, this discussion needs to follow a set of rules & guidelines to enable a healthy environment where both developer-to-user and user-to-user interaction can evolve. So if a moderator issues a warning for certain behaviour, it happens with the forum rules in mind & the aforementioned desire to enable a productive and healthy environment for all involved parties.

My post was a response to Brocephus breaking the forum rules within his previous post. I now realize that the inserted quote might have led you to believe that I was referring to that specific quote - if so, that wasn't the case.

Your new post is quite different and at least provides reasoning behind your opinion. Coming in and dropping an offensive-one liner as you did was a no-go.

Yeah no bud, let's not go down that path.
Yeah no bud, youre fanning flames.
 
Top Bottom