Bloc's warband missing features mod list (No Download/Showcase)

Users who are viewing this thread

five bucks

Knight
For you. That basically boils down your points. Bannerlord isn't a perfect game, I'm under no delusions about that, but because you don't find it fun, does not make that game a bad one. I don't find Civ fun, I'm never going to call it a bad game. Just because the game isn't fun for you doesn't mean that Bannerlord is a bad game.
Well I already put forward some pretty objective statements of why I didn't think it was fun.

Explain what makes something a bad or good, fun or unfun game, then? Would you not call Atari E.T. a bad game?

To me, it is a reasonable statement that an RPG that has bad roleplaying is a bad game. A grand strat that has bad politics and bad AI is a bad game. A slasher with a bad damage model is a bad game, and a tactics game with only 2 viable tactics is a bad game. If it doesn't accomplish the point of the genre/s it's part of, it isn't good.

You can push the subjectivity angle all you want, but at the end of the day if we don't try and create some sort of statement on what constitutes good or bad, then you can also never call anything good or bad, and never critique anything either.

A "game" at its core is being challenged, and overcoming that challenge either through skill or smart decisions. In Bannerlord, a lot of the time your decisions are obvious or don't matter - vote for choice A or choice B? doesn't matter, the lords all already voted one way - and your skill has little impact - it's a 500v500 man battle with only two viable tactics, and you'll get taken down by a handful of stray arrows if you try to fight. You spend a lot of time just... running around the map, clicking "recruit all", doing fetch quests; going through motions that don't require neuron activation or reflex action, which is what a good game does.

Nearly every feature is either unimplemented, incomplete, horribly imbalanced or bugged. So, how can you justify saying "it's hard to argue that it's a bad game"? The opposite is true, it's VERY easy to argue that this is a bad game. Good fundamentals, but lacking what makes games fun.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
Well I already put forward some pretty objective statements of why I didn't think it was fun.
Again, for you. Those are objective reasons as to why the game isn't fun for you. Just because you have valid reasons as to why you don't find the game to be fun, does not mean that the game is bad. Its hard to argue its a bad game because your arguments are fundamentally what you want from Bannerlord.

Every single thing that you brought up is why the game isn't fun for you, and almost every single one of those issues might or might not matter to the next person. Those are the issues that you see in the game. Its hard to argue that the game is bad, but it isn't hard to argue why the game isn't fun for you.
 

five bucks

Knight
Again, for you. Those are objective reasons as to why the game isn't fun for you. Just because you have valid reasons as to why you don't find the game to be fun, does not mean that the game is bad. Its hard to argue its a bad game because your arguments are fundamentally what you want from Bannerlord.

Every single thing that you brought up is why the game isn't fun for you, and almost every single one of those issues might or might not matter to the next person. Those are the issues that you see in the game. Its hard to argue that the game is bad, but it isn't hard to argue why the game isn't fun for you.

You can push the subjectivity angle all you want, but at the end of the day if we don't try and create some sort of statement on what constitutes good or bad, then you can also never call anything good or bad, and never critique anything either.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
You can push the subjectivity angle all you want, but at the end of the day if we don't try and create some sort of statement on what constitutes good or bad, then you can also never call anything good or bad, and never critique anything either.
You kinda can, it really isn't too hard. The issues with Bannerlord, when compared to what the game is meant to do, are pretty minor in the large scale of things. You can call an issue bad, but just because a game has issues doesn't mean that game is bad.
 

Mad Vader

Duhpressed
Duke
M&BWB
Bannerlord has 10,000 more players currently then Warband at the moment of me writing this. Its clear that there are Bannerlord players, but they aren't here. So, something tells me that is more a result of the forum rather then Bannerlord not having a community.
Yeah, no, blaming it on the forum doesn't work. Back at Warband release, the new Warband players took over the forum, despite not all of the old guard being on board with the newish stuff in Warband.
Another fact that proves you wrong is that the forum is not at all toxic or hostile to newcomers. It can be hostile to devs, but that's no reason for PLAYERS to avoid it.
Comparing a game with a decade of mods to a game that's been in EA for two, not really a fair comparison, is it.
Once Warband was released, at least 4 full conversion mods started posting and releasing. Even if some of them were not very good, they gained big followings. This happened in the few months after Warband released, not in the years after that. So, where are the comparable mods now?? There are none playable or even in earnest development because modders are waiting for mod tools to be finished and for the devs to stop making mod-breaking changes. And maybe there's no great, excited player base demanding big mods.
Your arguments reek of dishonesty, you were always just a contrarian on a mission.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
Your arguments reek of dishonesty, you were always just a contrarian on a mission.
I wish, it would make my life a lot easier.
Another fact that proves you wrong is that the forum is not at all toxic or hostile to newcomers. It can be hostile to devs, but that's no reason for PLAYERS to avoid it.
Almost every time someone comes in and says something positive, they're called a stupid newbie. Every time an appreciation post that isn't made by someone like Blunted it made, it gets swarmed with comments calling it bait. It can get toxic to anyone who actually likes Bannerlord.

And, to add onto you, you just called me a contrarian for not agreeing with the forum. I get I'm an *******, but it kinda proves my point, doesn't it. Anyone who is more pro-TW isn't really welcomed here.
Once Warband was released
Released. There's the word.

And there are also modding projects being worked on, and posting now. Its going to take time, especially with constant changes being made to Bannerlord. Well, they used to be constant at least.
 

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
For you. That basically boils down your points. Bannerlord isn't a perfect game, I'm under no delusions about that, but because you don't find it fun, does not make that game a bad one. I don't find Civ fun, I'm never going to call it a bad game. Just because the game isn't fun for you doesn't mean that Bannerlord is a bad game.
Not only for him. For me and alot of other players.
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight at Arms

There you go. Appreciation posts don't really happen all to often. But, not all were generally negative.
This one was pretty well received, although it wasn't entirely an appreciation post, also a question.
I´m stupid but those 3 threads don´t really proof your point (maybe thread 1). Where is this forum mob that ****s every positive vibe here?
 

JunKeteer

Regular
You kinda can, it really isn't too hard. The issues with Bannerlord, when compared to what the game is meant to do, are pretty minor in the large scale of things. You can call an issue bad, but just because a game has issues doesn't mean that game is bad.
This is a wrong take on the situation. You're enabling them to have further free reign on what constitutes a 'good' or 'bad' game or to ignore any criticism from anyone. The whole point of EA (+2 years now) is to get our opinions on the development and state of the game and to amalgamate a list of issues a majority see in order to adjust before 'official' release to the wider audience.
These aren't 'pretty minor' issues we are trying to get them to fix with the game; minor/subjective would be the face models (ie smirks) being too ugly or shoulder armor clipping.
 

AngryPanCake

Veteran
since we are discussing fun/not fun, the way I measure it is by the number of hours I spend playing a game. According to Steam, my games ranked per hours played:
Naval Action, Bannerlord, Total War Empire, Total War Attila, Total War Rome II...etc.

This is the breakdown for the 2 runner ups:

B&L: purchase date Oct 2021,
total hours: 487
duration owned: 176 days
Time played/day: 2.76 hours/day

Naval Action: purchase date Feb 2017,
total hours: 1,954
duration owned: 1746
Time played/day: 1.12 hours/day

Despite all the short comings, I have been playing B&L quite a bit and overall enjoying it, even more so with the different Mods I've tried so far.
Since I got B&L, I haven't played Naval Action at all! Which I thought was my all time favorite because of my fascination with the age of sail. It also has a great community, not so much the forum which is as toxic as any other gaming forum, but the players themselves from all over the world to interact with during the games/battles...etc.

So, in my opinion and only my opinion (of course everyone is entitled to my opinion...or is it to his/her opinion), this is a great game with great potential. I had a lot of doubts initially when I had made the choice to play it vanilla and participate in helping to fix issues and provide feedback, but quickly got disillusioned as I had in the past with EA games or game forums in general, so I broke down and started using Mods!
To me, myself and I, it made a huge difference.
So yes, I think overall this game is awesome!
 

Bjorn The Upset

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
Appreciation posts don't really happen all to often.
I wonder, why that does not happen very often. Is it because the game is bad or toxicity towards appreciation. Or how much of those factors play a part in this simultaneously. Maybe we can not quantify that but I have my opinion. I am active on reddit recently and I encountered threads about how people get bored playing Bannerlord and how the game feels empty.

I don't want to start another player count debate but mexxico said in a Turkish podcast that "I don't consider 20000 players as a success, we should have at least 30000 right now". And guess what, Warband still has 5000-7000 players at its peaks. When you add up the numbers, you get pretty close to what mexxico said.
 
Last edited:

Goyyyio

Veteran
Honestly, hours spent in Bannerlord don't mean you had fun, it's a game that's time consuming. Travelling from one place to another consumes null time (most of it actually), smithing and selling loot requires you to go to towns and that's null time, recruiting troops, null time, in fact a lot of what you do in this game is just roam until something interesting (a battle, a siege) there is a ****load of time you're doing boring stuff or literally just waiting for the next war to happen. It's not fair to say wow I've spent 3000 hours in this game that means it's fun, when probably only 500 hours were actually engaging and the rest of it was just a preparation where nothing happens or a loop of just killing looters for exp. There are games that are more comprised like idk some 10 hour games where the 10 hours you have experienced a gazillion different things. Not that this makes Bannerlord or Warband bad, it's part of the experience, but implying the whole run of a gameplay in Bannerlord was 100% fun then I don't know about that. I think this game can offer way more during these runs
 

five bucks

Knight
You kinda can, it really isn't too hard.
Ok, so go ahead and explain what makes a game good or bad as I already asked, and tell me why you consider Atari ET to be a bad game as opposed to good games.
The issues with Bannerlord, when compared to what the game is meant to do, are pretty minor in the large scale of things
How is a tactics game only having 2 viable tactics and 3 minute battles "minor"? Or a strategy game where the AI can't successfully do anything "minor"? Interested to see what mental gymnastics are used to justify this.
I wish, it would make my life a lot easier.

Almost every time someone comes in and says something positive, they're called a stupid newbie. Every time an appreciation post that isn't made by someone like Blunted it made, it gets swarmed with comments calling it bait. It can get toxic to anyone who actually likes Bannerlord.

And, to add onto you, you just called me a contrarian for not agreeing with the forum. I get I'm an *******, but it kinda proves my point, doesn't it. Anyone who is more pro-TW isn't really welcomed here.
We don't care if you're "pro-TW" or "anti-TW", what we want is for you to stop pretending a bad game is good just because, in your opinion, there aren't enough people disagreeing. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, as you just admitted you're doing, is in fact called contrarianism.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant
I wonder, why that does not happen very often. Is it because the game is bad or toxicity towards appreciation. Or how much of those factors play a part in this simultaneously. Maybe we can not quantify that but I have my opinion. I am active on reddit recently and I encountered threads about how people get bored playing Bannerlord and how the game feels empty.
Or maybe that appreciation posts are kinda rarer in general. People will be more vocal about their problems then when they like something.
Ok, so go ahead and explain what makes a game good or bad as I already asked, and tell me why you consider Atari ET to be a bad game as opposed to good games.
I know literally nothing about Atari ET, I'm not 30. If you want a game that I think is bad, Ride to Hell: Retribution works. Controls are clunky, combat is awful, as in barely works, sound design is busted. The game doesn't work. Bannerlord does, and a lot of the issues that are brought up are balancing.
We don't care if you're "pro-TW" or "anti-TW", what we want is for you to stop pretending a bad game is good just because, in your opinion, there aren't enough people disagreeing. Disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, as you just admitted you're doing, is in fact called contrarianism.
And I want you to stop acting like your opinion on the game means that it is inherently a bad game. Its genuinely absurd to point out problems that you have with the game and then to state that the game is objectively bad. Sometimes I have problems with balance in other games, and that is your problem with the game, balance, and I don't think the game is bad. I think it has balancing issues. The game doesn't crash constantly, the game doesn't constantly have bugs and doesn't work, there are mechanics that need balancing, but for most people there is a clear amount of fun to be had, but that fun doesn't make it a good game. Its an alright game, it sets out to be an avenue for players to build armies and fight battles, and it succeeds in that.

Also calling people contrarians when they disagree with you is kinda weak to be entirely honest with you. I disagree with you because I fundamentally disagree with you.

What I want is for this forum to stop pretending that Bannerlord is the worst thing in existence, that TW is just completely incompetent and the game is **** because of it, because it really isn't. I don't know if its because I've seen other EA periods, or have seen other games that are in just worse states entirely then Bannerlord, but I have different standards entirely from this forum.
 

five bucks

Knight
I know literally nothing about Atari ET, I'm not 30. If you want a game that I think is bad, Ride to Hell: Retribution works. Controls are clunky, combat is awful, as in barely works, sound design is busted. The game doesn't work. Bannerlord does
Ok that's a start. No it doesn't, a huge amount of features are incomplete, non functional or terribly imbalanced. You know this.
And I want you to stop acting like your opinion on the game means that it is inherently a bad game. Its genuinely absurd to point out problems that you have with the game and then to state that the game is objectively bad.
That's what you did with Ride to Hell Retribution, listed objectively broken stuff and then said "combat is awful" which is an opinion by your standards
Sometimes I have problems with balance in other games, and that is your problem with the game, balance, and I don't think the game is bad. I think it has balancing issues.
Severe balancing issues, as are present in BL, make a game bad. They are objectively a bad thing and hardly a matter of opinion when they're as obvious as in Bannerlord.
The game doesn't crash constantly, the game doesn't constantly have bugs and doesn't work
Crashes are not that common but if you think it doesn't constantly have bugs you're clearly not playing the same game as the rest of us or even reading the front page of this forum
Its an alright game, it sets out to be an avenue for players to build armies and fight battles, and it succeeds in that.
Fighting said battles is not a fun experience and therefore not even "alright", if your standard for an "alright" game doesn't involve any fun at all then you really need to reconsider it. To me, an "alright" game is fun for one playthrough, a "bad" game isn't fun even for the first playthrough and a "good" game is fun for multiple playthroughs. Bannerlord is bad because even before you're finished the first playthrough you want to dig out your eyeballs
Also calling people contrarians when they disagree with you is kinda weak to be entirely honest with you. I disagree with you because I fundamentally disagree with you.
You literally just said you disagree because you think there's not enough people disagreeing, that's called contrarianism.
What I want is for this forum to stop pretending that Bannerlord is the worst thing in existence,
It isn't, and as you can see I praise the aspects that are good, but unfortunately it is not a fun game by the definition of a game
 

Calabanar

Sergeant at Arms
I enjoy playing the game of "sit on the table for 2 hours", others enjoy it too (20,000 daily players). Just because you don't enjoy it doesn't make it a bad game, also mentionning this game positively here creates riots which indicates this forum is toxic.

The game could be better, but I and others find it perfectly viable thus you have no basis to be angry/dissappointed, you are just being whiny for the sake of being whiny.

What I want is for this forum is to stop pretending that Sitting on the table for 2 hours is the worst thing in existence.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom