Community Feedback-based EARLY ACCESS ROADMAP - ready for you, Taleworlds!

Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?

  • Yes

    Votes: 254 86.7%
  • No

    Votes: 39 13.3%

  • Total voters
    293

Currently viewing this thread:

five bucks

Sergeant at Arms
I just don't agree when you claim that it represents the "majority".
Your roadmap (again you did a great job) includes a lot bias and is critisizing the current development of the game. Obviously It will tend to attract more people thinking that way than the others. It is some kind of influence (OP is not neutral).
What do you think the poll is asking though?
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
What do you think the poll is asking though?
Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?
The question itself is not neutral.
I mean, what are the basic wants for a game = having fun?
Did I have fun with feasts, sword sister, full control over my vassals, skill books, over-scripted companions? No.
I had fun with a whole concept, a vision offered by TW (and other mods vision).
As I already said a while ago, making a poll so it respects the structure of your roadmap would have been even more coherent.
You already have a well structured OP.
Except if your purpose was simply to gather a lot of vote, hoping to simply claim it a "majority" win.
I voted "no" because of Cat4 and other things, and also because of the sole binary choice between "yes" and "no".
But I guess, because my voice do not meet the "voiced consensus" of this forum, I'm just good for remaining in the "minority".
And, tbh, I'm fine with that.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Okay, so if the bias you claim is forum vs. non forum, how is this meant to invalidate the poll?
I didn't say it invalidated the poll. I said you couldn't say it was representative of the playerbase because forum-goers are a self-selected group.
 

bonerstorm

Veteran
So if we consider your statement being:
  • There is no hope that this game will ever not suck
  • Those of us who are pissed off are the majority
And other users told you that huge drop after release is a common trend in game industry
Those are not my points. My point is that BL was in the top 10 of Steam sales in 2020 because there was massive interest, but that interest dried up when people realized how busted this thing is AND how the devs don't GAF about user feedback.

It's been a year since siege AI was broken on arrival and the devs still haven't begun to fix it. It's been a year since personalities and skills were broken on arrival and the devs have only made minor tweaks. It's been a year since weapons and armor values+stats were broken on arrival, but instead of attempting to fix core issues the devs have been focused on making minor tweaks to specific weapons or units.

Based on their progress and public statements, the opinion of devs seems to be that the game is mostly done but just requires bugfixing and tweaking. That is out of step with reality and the game will never not suck unless the devs actually WANT to make it not suck.
So you are considering the MP player base as an indicator.

Here we don't take into account the MP player base? I'm lost.
BL is a singleplayer and multiplayer game in early access. That means there should be a substantial user base providing feedback and guiding development into full release. The user base is much smaller than it should be and the devs don't seem to care what they think.

Multiplayer means more people should be currently playing. The fact that the SP campaign has had considerable expansion means more people should be currently playing. This is very simple.

Despite Bannerlord is the sequel of Warband, if we consider both products in terms of marketing, it is not comparable.
Warband is a mature and polished product (10 years+), low price, low price DCL, with great polished mods. Public age range is wide.
Bannerlord is under development (not released), high price, no DCL, mods being under development. Public age range may be less wide.

You stay focused on the drop after release, if we look to the average and peak users in last 30 days from your source:
Warband : average (4K) peak (6,7K)
Bannerlord : average (14K) peak (23K)

Percentage is easy to purposely interpret.
Last 30 days is irrelevant. Look at "all". MB Warband always had a substantial if smaller player base that rose and fell with new updates and releases and mods. Bannerlord had a massive spike of attention that almost completely disappeared. Even now, WB didn't lose most of the core userbase despite BL existing.

Early Access and higher price --> presumably higher quality means there should be sustained interest in BL as new content is dropped on a regular basis and new mods keep popping up - like a TV show vs a movie. New content should mean new eyeballs.

BL does not have that because the game is clearly a step down from WB in everything but graphics and there's been minimal support for modders (who are dropping like flies and also just signed a letter of protest to the devs).

Again, not comparable. let's wait a full release.

All I see there is a good strategical position for the franchise.
Thank you for this analysis.
More seriously, speaking about ranking, Bannerlord faces more competition than warband, and TW better manage correclty the final release.

Speaking of performance, price strategy is also a huge factor.

To make it short, it is too early to really make any conclusion regarding the possible fail/success of Bannerlord.
And to come back to the OP, while TW would better consider wisely which features are to be implemented to ensure the most enjoyable experience for its customers, it is also important for them to stick with their own vision. To give Bannerlord its real identity.
Except that the devs have made clear that their vision for "full release" is basically the same crap as now but with tweaks and bugfixes, not significantly expanding core mechanics (including not implementing many features that were in vanilla WB). And, for instance, they're dumbing down the AI for console release - NOT improving it.

If people wanted this game as-is but smoother instead of significantly fixed, then more of them would be actually playing it.

Your faith in the devs to produce a good game is impeached by the fact that the devs have expressed zero interest in producing a good game.
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
Those are not my points. My point is that BL was in the top 10 of Steam sales in 2020 because there was massive interest, but that interest dried up when people realized how busted this thing is AND how the devs don't GAF about user feedback.

It's been a year since siege AI was broken on arrival and the devs still haven't begun to fix it. It's been a year since personalities and skills were broken on arrival and the devs have only made minor tweaks. It's been a year since weapons and armor values+stats were broken on arrival, but instead of attempting to fix core issues the devs have been focused on making minor tweaks to specific weapons or units.

Based on their progress and public statements, the opinion of devs seems to be that the game is mostly done but just requires bugfixing and tweaking. That is out of step with reality and the game will never not suck unless the devs actually WANT to make it not suck.

BL is a singleplayer and multiplayer game in early access. That means there should be a substantial user base providing feedback and guiding development into full release. The user base is much smaller than it should be and the devs don't seem to care what they think.

Multiplayer means more people should be currently playing. The fact that the SP campaign has had considerable expansion means more people should be currently playing. This is very simple.


Last 30 days is irrelevant. Look at "all". MB Warband always had a substantial if smaller player base that rose and fell with new updates and releases and mods. Bannerlord had a massive spike of attention that almost completely disappeared. Even now, WB didn't lose most of the core userbase despite BL existing.

Early Access and higher price --> presumably higher quality means there should be sustained interest in BL as new content is dropped on a regular basis and new mods keep popping up - like a TV show vs a movie. New content should mean new eyeballs.

BL does not have that because the game is clearly a step down from WB in everything but graphics and there's been minimal support for modders (who are dropping like flies and also just signed a letter of protest to the devs).


Except that the devs have made clear that their vision for "full release" is basically the same crap as now but with tweaks and bugfixes, not significantly expanding core mechanics (including not implementing many features that were in vanilla WB). And, for instance, they're dumbing down the AI for console release - NOT improving it.

If people wanted this game as-is but smoother instead of significantly fixed, then more of them would be actually playing it.

Your faith in the devs to produce a good game is impeached by the fact that the devs have expressed zero interest in producing a good game.
Not going to breakdown everything because i will just repeat the same things.
You are comparing 2 differents products, in a different phase of their cycle of life, facing different threats and opportunities.
Development is slow but not stopped.
What about the battle terrain maps, lord's hall fight, iron man mode, etc...?
We don't even have the banners (in Bannerlord...). Duh said several times they are pending a more complex feature.
Regarding the modders letter, except any misunderstanding from my side, TW actually gave a nice feedback here.
Because, mods are a huge part of M&B franchise.
Anyway I know that you are already enjoying your time on BL, and that like everyone, you only wish the game to give its full potential.
But the reality is that I'm not a pure hater and my beefing with TW isn't simple ragei. I've played for hundreds of hours and I'm probably going to play for thousands of hours, because I'm a huge fan. Posting negative criticism that is detailed and solution-oriented is an act of love which devs + mods suppress at their peril.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
The fact that the SP campaign has had considerable expansion means more people should be currently playing. This is very simple.
What expansion? If you played the SP campaign at EA start you could jump right back in and it would be like 99% the same.
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
Sorry, I'm not invalidating the poll.
It clearly shows that you are not the only one to expect those implementations and it got looked at by the devs. Again well done.
I just don't agree when you claim that it represents the "majority".
Your roadmap (again you did a great job) includes a lot bias and is critisizing the current development of the game. Obviously It will tend to attract more people thinking that way than the others. It is some kind of influence (OP is not neutral).

I don't agree with this at all. It implies that there is a silent majority that seems to feel that things are going perfectly well.


I greatly appreciate Duh responding to this thread. It shows that he makes an effort to inform the community of what is going on, even if it only with his opinions.

That said, his response does little more than make my disappointment with this game settle in. If his personal opinions reflect the ideas of other devs (which I grant may not be the case) then this game is going to be a sad shell of what it could be. I hope I am wrong, but there's a reason I haven't truly played the game in almost 6 months. The game just feels too shallow, and I worry that this is in fact the feeling the devs were going for.

Of course I could be wrong. Another very real possibility based on Duh's responses is that the exact opposite is true. That the reason he says that such things are not a high priority is because they know that the base mechanics of the game are not up to snuff yet. He did say "I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation." Which does lend to this.

I ask humbly Duh or any other dev to give clarification on this. I think I speak for almost everyone when I say that The community on these forums will not be upset to hear from devs that they still believe the base mechanics of the game are unfinished. Quite the opposite in fact. I think the vast majority of this community would be grateful to hear such a thing. It would give us all much needed context for the updates. Even if they don't feel comfortable talking about the future plans yet, which is completely understandable, hearing that you feel the games framework still needs a lot of work and that you don't want to discuss new features or content until this framework is solid would likely give this entire community far more patience as well as sighs of relief.

I do agree with this. As a whole the community would be very pleased to hear that a lot more work would be done on the mechanics.

Right now the siege AI, and even regular AI need a ton of work. Basics like timing shots, trying to dodge, using terrain more effectively, formations, etc, need a lot of work.
 
Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?
The question itself is not neutral.
I mean, what are the basic wants for a game = having fun?
Did I have fun with feasts, sword sister, full control over my vassals, skill books, over-scripted companions? No.
I voted "no" because of Cat4 and other things, and also because of the sole binary choice between "yes" and "no".
Is this not a contradiction to your point?

You claim that the question is not neutral, yet you yourself seem perfectly capable of disagreeing with it based on your own expectations of the game. Personally, I didn't feel pressured to press "yes" because of the structure of the sentence or OP, and it is clear that neither were you. You are Exhibit A in proving that people can have an opposing view to OP, so why do you say that this poll isn't reflective of the community?
I voted "no" because of Cat4 and other things, and also because of the sole binary choice between "yes" and "no".
What other vote is needed? There is a reason why there is a 29-page discussion on the topic, and you yourself are involved in it...
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
I don't agree with this at all. It implies that there is a silent majority that seems to feel that things are going perfectly well.
I'm not implying such thing, simply because I support myself a lot of ideas suggested in the OP...
Is this not a contradiction to your point?

You claim that the question is not neutral, yet you yourself seem perfectly capable of disagreeing with it based on your own expectations of the game. Personally, I didn't feel pressured to press "yes" because of the structure of the sentence or OP, and it is clear that neither were you. You are Exhibit A in proving that people can have an opposing view to OP, so why do you say that this poll isn't reflective of the community?
What other vote is needed? There is a reason why there is a 29-page discussion on the topic, and you yourself are involved in it...
First, we need to define "community"...
Secondly, we were discussing about the fact that this poll is representative of the "community".
If we define the "community" as the whole player base of Bannerlord, then my statement is that it is not the case because there is a biais in the sample (this forum users only, language, age,...).
And I was not speaking about "pressure" but "influence".
Actually, I kinda agree with Cat.1-Cat.2 and Cat.3 of the OP.
But certainly not Cat.4. Which made me vote "no".
Since you are asking, a multiple choice checkbox (per category) could have been a fair and better poll, better representing the needs of the users of this forum...
 
First, we need to define "community"...
Secondly, we were discussing about the fact that this poll is representative of the "community".
If we define the "community" as the whole player base of Bannerlord, then my statement is that it is not the case because there is a biais in the sample (this forum users only, language, age,...).
The players who don't participate in forums about Bannerlord are not part of a Bannerlord community. The central Bannerlord community is naturally here, although there are reddit and Steam communities too that are not as well defined, but may be separate from this one with few overlaps.
There's your definition, since you have problems with meanings of words and are heavily biased against this community.

Edit: actually the poll as it is now, is as relevant as the Steam ratings who are also not multiple choice answers. Complain to Valve about that, threatening you will downvote all the games, because you don't like a small detail in each of them.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Sergeant at Arms
I didn't say it invalidated the poll. I said you couldn't say it was representative of the playerbase because forum-goers are a self-selected group.
If merely having a self-selected group (regardless of the group's actual difference from the general population) made a survey unrepresentative, then wouldn't all surveys be unrepresentative, as the type of person who willingly involves themselves in a survey puts all respondents in a self-selected group?
Does this roadmap represent your basic wants for Bannerlord?
The question itself is not neutral.
I mean, what are the basic wants for a game = having fun?
Did I have fun with feasts, sword sister, full control over my vassals, skill books, over-scripted companions? No.
You're kind of missing the point, or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. How does you voting no mean that the poll isn't representative of the community?
As I already said a while ago, making a poll so it respects the structure of your roadmap would have been even more coherent.
Except if your purpose was simply to gather a lot of vote, hoping to simply claim it a "majority" win.
It was already a very big post. Adding a poll for each and every individual suggestion would more than double its length.

Honestly the poll was an afterthought. I just wanted to show that community members generally agreed with most things on the list (thus being representative of "community expectations") and it wasn't all just my sole opinion, in a way that was more convenient than linking to every single instance of feedback which I had seen multiple other community members post on the forum, youtube, reddit, and steam.
 

Sigaretovic

Sergeant at Arms
Ive been noticing a trend lately. Every thread that spinozart joins degenerates into a pissing contest. The guy is a troll.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
If merely having a self-selected group (regardless of the group's actual difference from the general population) made a survey unrepresentative, then wouldn't all surveys be unrepresentative, as the type of person who willingly involves themselves in a survey puts all respondents in a self-selected group?
To a minor extent, yes. But you get a much smaller impact from taking an already selected group (i.e. not people who approach the survey, but the survey approaches them), after making sure that group (the sampling frame, to use the professional term) is representative.
Is this not a contradiction to your point?

You claim that the question is not neutral, yet you yourself seem perfectly capable of disagreeing with it based on your own expectations of the game.
I doubt it matters in this case but for surveys, balanced questions include the option of opposition in the question. Something like "Do you agree or disagree with this roadmap?" would be considered balanced. But it probably didn't have an effect on this one and I seriously doubt it was intentional on five bucks' part.
 

five bucks

Sergeant at Arms
But it probably didn't have an effect on this one and I seriously doubt it was intentional on five bucks' part.
Well thank you for the good faith.
To a minor extent, yes. But you get a much smaller impact from taking an already selected group (i.e. not people who approach the survey, but the survey approaches them), after making sure that group (the sampling frame, to use the professional term) is representative.
If you can agree the impact can vary, then I think this illustrates that there are degrees of representivity, and that something isn't automatically considered not representative just because it doesn't provide perfect representation.

The items on the list are taken from multiple sources (youtube, reddit, steamcommunity) rather than just this forum, too.
 

Spinozart1

Sergeant
small detail
Indeed.
If merely having a self-selected group (regardless of the group's actual difference from the general population) made a survey unrepresentative, then wouldn't all surveys be unrepresentative, as the type of person who willingly involves themselves in a survey puts all respondents in a self-selected group?

You're kind of missing the point, or maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. How does you voting no mean that the poll isn't representative of the community?

It was already a very big post. Adding a poll for each and every individual suggestion would more than double its length.

Honestly the poll was an afterthought. I just wanted to show that community members generally agreed with most things on the list (thus being representative of "community expectations") and it wasn't all just my sole opinion, in a way that was more convenient than linking to every single instance of feedback which I had seen multiple other community members post on the forum, youtube, reddit, and steam.
Listen, apparently it seems that we are in some kind of misundertanding, and it may come to the fact that i'm focusing on small details, while you are focusing on the big picture.
There is no doubt that you did a good job collecting information on different platforms, hence the good quality of your OP.
And because of your efforts, we received some feedback from devs (limited but still).
I will quote Apocal, as I somehow think the same way than him.
I doubt it matters in this case but for surveys, balanced questions include the option of opposition in the question. Something like "Do you agree or disagree with this roadmap?" would be considered balanced. But it probably didn't have an effect on this one and I seriously doubt it was intentional on five bucks' part.
I hope it is ok for you to end our little discussion here.
 

DariusPlayer

Recruit
The only reason why Taleworlds didnt answer us, is because somebody kneeled on their neck. Now that derek chauvin is in jail they should be able to answer us again.
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
tenor.gif
 
Top Bottom