Beta Patch Notes v1.2.0-v1.2.6

Users who are viewing this thread

BG3 is not a sandbox, not a multi-genre, with a much bigger dev team (130 vs 450).

It's normal to have preferences, BG3 is an excellent game, but if you want to stay fair, you have to compare what is comparable...

BG3 and Bannerlord don't have much to compare in terms of gameplay's and technical constraints. BG3 is more of an old-school RPG, compared to Divinity or maybe DA Inquisition.

Bannerlord is a mixture of several genres (action, rpg, strategy, management), each time with an associated AI. For those who would like Bannerlord to be the perfection of all these genres, I tell you, it's simply impossible, even with a big team. And the more they will add, the more complicated and longer it will be to maintain a stable and efficient code.

You don't realize how complex it is to have IA in your code, that's why most big games favor scripted or online...
I was only making the comparison context-wise in terms of enjoying as a videogame; regardless any wide differences in the genre. If it's about a technical/professional comparison, valid.

But enjoyment in a game is completely subjective to the individual. I had more engaged fun in the ~100 hrs of BG3 than I can memorably say about BL although I spent more hours in BL.

I can't really think of a game out there like BL, only side references others have made like Kenshi, TW series, CK3, etc...; but also doesn't mean they are free from criticism because they are doing something difficult/unique. Nor does this mean they are 'allowed' leniency with how slow the pace or non-communicative they've been; especially nearing 1-year post-'official' release.

Whatever money in the coffers they got from the sales is only going to continue depleting the longer this gets dragged along. Will this be another few months only, a year, 2 years? Are they going to try another cash influx through Steam sales or DLCs?

BL clearly bit more than they can chew, scope creep issues, skill issues, and they probably started running low on overhead, which is why the game was released as it was; then put whatever was incomplete as 'roadmap' leaders.

So what is their plan? 'Finish' the game - but what/when is that for them? As I'm simply 'finished' playing their betas.
 
Tourelle0487, the game is still in the top 100, surrounded by AAA games, multiplayer games, or recent games. We are far from the total abandonment that you describe.
Fortunately, most players still know how to recognize and respect the work of developers who do their best to deliver to you what has allowed you to play "hundreds of hours". And who continue to improve it again and again despite your comments.
As Rackie says, it's a matter of common sense relative to the nature of the game and the amount of time you've spent on it.

Macewindu16, you were answered with more courtesy, but you were told exactly the same thing as I told you, the communication you are requesting is either:
- totally useless, because you'll waste their time on something you won't even understand, it's way too technical
- and/or totally counter-productive for them, because gossips will love calling them incompetent...
In both cases what do we gain the players? Nothing at all. Just even more toxic forums and an even longer delay because of the time for explanation... No benefit contrary to what you think.
If you really have this curiosity, I invite you to look for coding videos and tutorials.
In my opinion it is simply incredibly easy to give us some information. 10 minutes is simply not much time to give us at the very least some vague information.


I actually think they might be on holiday (or a large amount of their team) in August, so I have high hopes for next week and what that brings.
 
Anyone else notice on the test branch that early game medicine levels much slower than before?

I don't think it is a bug, it does level. I suspect that AI being more defensive means the troops get less injured. So, you get less medicine experience. This is in the vs bandits and very small party stage. Then you get to sieges, and the siege weapons now outright kill, one shot, so again .. less medicine experience. It just feels more annoying to level that skill with a new character on test than on live.
 
Anyone else notice on the test branch that early game medicine levels much slower than before?

I don't think it is a bug, it does level. I suspect that AI being more defensive means the troops get less injured. So, you get less medicine experience. This is in the vs bandits and very small party stage. Then you get to sieges, and the siege weapons now outright kill, one shot, so again .. less medicine experience. It just feels more annoying to level that skill with a new character on test than on live.
Working as intended. The T in Taleworlds stands for Tedium.
 
are you trying to say that the release of the game wasn't rushed?

I would not use the word "rushed". I would say that it has been "mismanaged". This has led to:
- Protracted initial development time.
- Uninspired and slow feature development and bug fixes.
- Poorly-thought-out, half-baked feature implementations.
- Sketchy roadmap.
- Poor source management. ("fixed" bugs later reintroduced)
- Horrible communication.

It's a real shame because, while M&B was quite janky, it has become a beloved franchise due to its niche design and ability to rise above some of its flaws through mods; Bannerlord could have been and absolute masterpiece. They had the support of a dedicated fanbase and a proven set of concepts to use as a foundation for something truly special.

I would not say that it has been an abysmal failure, but it's C- work. A real disappointment. Certainly my faith in them has been damaged and anything they produce in the future will be suspect, certainly nothing will be a day 1 purchase.
 
Não ouvi falar de nada. Starfield está prestes a sair, isso será uma boa distração até que TW se recomponha.
was looking forward to playing this update but it took so long that I even lost interest. I even deleted to install starfield.
 
my dude mismanagement is a reason for a rushed release. but if you like talking about management and how bad everything is then let's see:

I would not use the word "rushed". I would say that it has been "mismanaged". This has led to:
- Protracted initial development time.
- Horrible communication.
the only thing i can say is: each time there was a serious request or feedback the community managers and/or devs responded asap - thats the only thing important to me. the other stuff is gimmicky bulls* some people might like to keep up the discussion (which is quite a thing if you want to settle in the industry i guess) and attention - concidering the daily s*it show you see here in the forums and elsewhere it's probably for the better to keep mouths shut when there is nothing to announce - keep the unnecessary noise away and focus.

- Sketchy roadmap.
taleworlds actually should've taught you that a roadmap is a distraction and something you can put a checkmark on as soon as it's implemented - no matter the functionality, people stop talking about. so where is the use of it? and indeed the roadmaps weren't sketchy at all as game development is always subject of change, you can not go to deep into detail - that's known.
- Poorly-thought-out, half-baked feature implementations.
a lot of "poorly though out" features are community wanted, like: kingdom defection, alleys, decreased difficulty, or decreased death rate - all of those things where implemented in a rushed way, just to make you happy as fast as possible. mismanagement by listening to the community?
you could say that instead of focussing on the core issues, the management was dumb enough to listen to the loudest toddlers in the community and gave them priority - same with "release the game" attitudes - even though i think financials and pr relevance where the main reasons for release and pressure - dont want to blame anyone but i just want to describe how complex the problem for a sandbox like bannerlord actually is.
- Uninspired and slow feature development and bug fixes.
i can not say anything to that, given to said things above. missing fixes are truly overdue (for more than years) for example: Reinforcement system is a mess (1.8 solution poorly working), battle order system is a mess (since 1.7 no clean troop seperation), ai issues, tribute issue, economy, sound issues., but thankfully factions are destroyed immediatly after you got all their settlements - top priority for a lot of people out there. imo all those mentioned issues should have been looked on steadily and fixed asap. and especially for the battle order system and deployment i can not really agree that this is uninspiriational at all - it's just not quite functional.


so you can call it mismanagement or whatever. if a game get's released out of early access in a very uncomplete way, then the release was rushed. bannerlord wasn't even technically working on consoles at release so how was it not rushed? mismanagement? maybe. probably! yet still it's rushed. and as you can see they still need more time to fix things. so thinking like "you had enough time to fix this" isn't really changing the fact that they apparently weren't having the time - no matter the reasons = rushed release.
 
Working as intended. The T in Taleworlds stands for Tedium.
I don't find this and the other reply helpful. I suspect it is an unintended consequence of other game changes. And I actually like most of the other changes. Feedback on the test branch is the goal of the branch. I was also curious if others had seen it. I think this thread may not be the right place for this feedback?

Perhaps I should submit it as a "bug"?

... even though as a (retired, non-game) developer, I would not call this a "bug".
 
a lot of "poorly though out" features are community wanted, like: kingdom defection, alleys, decreased difficulty, or decreased death rate - all of those things where implemented in a rushed way, just to make you happy as fast as possible. mismanagement by listening to the community?
you could say that instead of focussing on the core issues, the management was dumb enough to listen to the loudest toddlers in the community and gave them priority - same with "release the game" attitudes - even though i think financials and pr relevance where the main reasons for release and pressure - dont want to blame anyone but i just want to describe how complex the problem for a sandbox like bannerlord actually is.
I think you're giving us too much credit on these - one can pick out bad features added and coincide it with posts here throughout; but what about the ones not implemented or ignored? Are they listening to us or not? If they are listening; guess it's only to the 'poorly thought out' features that end up being implemented? Even if that was the case, that's on them to filter out and flesh out for their game.
Also, the flip of that would be, if they shouldn't have listened the 'loudest toddlers' for said features, what was their intended content or 'meat' of the game absent those; or many others posited here (ie FoW, formation targeting, item balancing, workshop tweaks, kingdom decay, etc...)?
so you can call it mismanagement or whatever. if a game get's released out of early access in a very uncomplete way, then the release was rushed. bannerlord wasn't even technically working on consoles at release so how was it not rushed? mismanagement? maybe. probably! yet still it's rushed. and as you can see they still need more time to fix things. so thinking like "you had enough time to fix this" isn't really changing the fact that they apparently weren't having the time - no matter the reasons = rushed release.
So yes, it wasn't necessarily 'rushed' - but it was also definitely not 'full release' ready at all. If it was still kept as EA, sure, slow af pace but it's still considered like a prototype.
Imagine buying a jigsaw puzzle but it's missing some pieces, or some pieces are just mismatched, missing print, etc...unacceptable. I guess we're going to get the right puzzle pieces (or some of them) in the mail a couple months later or whatever. Most probably tossed the puzzle away by then or templated their own missing pieces so they can get the complete puzzle themselves since the manufacturers botched it.
 
Anyone else notice on the test branch that early game medicine levels much slower than before?
It seemed the same as before to me.
I don't think it is a bug, it does level. I suspect that AI being more defensive means the troops get less injured. So, you get less medicine experience. This is in the vs bandits and very small party stage.
I suppose that makes sense. What I do always is specifically always get a certain amount of troops defeated by charging them alone into enemies in early game. like send 10, then another 10, or less if it's less enemies. Then once you get to 75 medicine and have doctors oath you don't have to worry about it anymore because you get medicine from defeating enemies.
 
I think you're giving us too much credit on these - one can pick out bad features added and coincide it with posts here throughout; but what about the ones not implemented or ignored? Are they listening to us or not? If they are listening; guess it's only to the 'poorly thought out' features that end up being implemented? Even if that was the case, that's on them to filter out and flesh out for their game.
Also, the flip of that would be, if they shouldn't have listened the 'loudest toddlers' for said features, what was their intended content or 'meat' of the game absent those; or many others posited here (ie FoW, formation targeting, item balancing, workshop tweaks, kingdom decay, etc...)?
I get where you are comming from. It's actually not my intention to blame the community for how things are. i meant to describe in which way management and priorities can get easely twisted in such a huge game - "mismanagement" is as easy to say as to do. look at what you are saying: on the one hand side you want taleworlds to listen to the community, on the other hand you want them to sort things out. or others: on the one hand they want a release asap, on the other hand they want the content working out. i dont see any point where they dont do that. to me it seems like that we are witnessing exactly that struggle between releasing improvements in the fastest time possible - lack of quality included.
Well i can only speak on my own experience with taleworlds so far and based on that i can surely say that they at least thinking about community demands and if they make sense try to somehow implement it into the game.
for example long time ago during early access once a dev showed up in my chat and we where talking about the death rates. the chat (f.e. lyon exodus) was suggesting to lower the death possibility rating. back then the high death rate was subject of testing life-death cycles but some of the players really got issues with that. so we suggested an option to have a setting implemented to customize death ratings. dev promised to talk with the person in charge and weeks later the feature got implemented.
people here in the forums where demanding more stuff to do in town and rougery enhancement and they got it - these are just examples but there is also the ongoing conversation about economy and ai which are still subject of change. given to that it would be naive to say the devs aren't listening or seeing things and iam actually surprised that some of you veterans don't seem to see the effort to make people happy.

how the approaches and solutions on issues are looking like is on a different page tho. remember when people asked for a reinforcement fix (back then reinforcements where bound to the default spawn position)? and look what we have now - an even worse system :grin:

lately iam also complaining a little bit more because iam also really not satisfied about the game quality especially with the after release branches and quality. and yet still community managers/devs hear me out kindly. and looking into the bug reports i can see that this is not a privilege but a standard.
 
I don't find this and the other reply helpful. I suspect it is an unintended consequence of other game changes. And I actually like most of the other changes. Feedback on the test branch is the goal of the branch. I was also curious if others had seen it. I think this thread may not be the right place for this feedback?

Perhaps I should submit it as a "bug"?

... even though as a (retired, non-game) developer, I would not call this a "bug".
🥱 Maybe (in all your wisdom) you should consult the patch notes for changes to the medicine skill tree?

Spoiler: They did some stuff.
 
Watching people play Starfield and notice bugs you found even back in F3, Skyrim and F4... Their creation engine working as intended... In that regard I don't think TW is any better or worse than other studios out there. They SHOULD all strive to deliver their best regardless though -)
 
Back
Top Bottom