Nalgasucia507
Squire
Please folks. Don't feed stupid. Stop derailing the thread.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
***Community Feedback ROADMAP - What Taleworlds still needs to fix!***
- 主题发起人 five bucks
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Squire
Most people here don't hate the game, they are just disappointed of all the untapped potential. Infact most people visiting this forum are probably more passionate about the game than RandomJoe76 who left a good review at the beginning of Early Access and then moved on to the next game ;3
Hey, look at the positive side! Several things are marked green now. We are making progress. The wait continues :p
Hey, look at the positive side! Several things are marked green now. We are making progress. The wait continues :p
GojoGem
Banned
That you're saying
1) only in the forums we "hate" the game (not true, proven by Steam's positive reviews making the exact same critiques we make here.
2) that we hate the game, something not true since we love the game but find it lacking.
This is getting repetitive and I'm not answering you anymore on this issue, as you have already been proven wrong
guiskj
Squire
OK, regardless of everything else, this is objectively funny. Well done.
GojoGem
Banned
I hadn't read this, thanks for answering Duh. I think part of the problem is that a lot of things we care about are being overlooked by the team, or at least that is how it looks like. It's been a long time and the AI can't still use siege equipment properly, marriage and lord interactions are dull and uninteresting, smithing is completely broken and many features that were in Warband are coming back in lesser ways than they were before, the biggest example being Prison Break. Despite the community's concerns about these issues I haven't heard of a single dev sharing some light about all of this, for example, is the marriage system getting some upgrade at some point in the future? Will cutscenes* be a thing finally? Is immersion going to get more attention by the developers? I know many players will say "this isn't important" and will for example advocate for some other kind of features getting attention instead, but I don't think I stand alone when I say this is very important and requires improvementPreamble
I feel that it is important to clarify a couple of things before going on to responding to the OP. Fırst, this is my personal take on the topic (and some related matters). It isn't a company statement and this will not provide you with a list of final product specifications. I will also primarily focus on things that I have some knowledge of (the single player campaign). Finally, I may note if I find a particular feature more or less necessary or likely alongside some thoughts on the why, but that does not mean it is confirmed or, conversely, excluded / rejected.
To add unto that, I have been with this community for over a decade, coming in as a player, continuing as a modder, then a modding and global moderator and now a developer. That is to say - I am aware of at least some of the realities on both sides and hold both dear.
With that out of the way... I will split the reply into 2 segments. The first will engage with some of the more abstract ideas & sentiments while the second will try to go over at least some of the listed features. That way, people can pick and choose what they want to sift through.
Ideas & Sentiments
I agree that there are plenty of things that can be done to further improve the game. However, working alongside the community to achieve a desirable level of quality does not - to me - mean that a company needs to follow each and every community request.
To begin with, there is no one community nor is there one specific opinion about what features there should be, how they should work in detail and which of them are of what urgency / value. (To give an example, the latter is readily observable in any patch that is perceived to tilt more towards SP or MP content than it "should".)
Naturally, that does not mean that broader trends can't be observed or used. But even at that level, there can obviously be quite distinct, even conflicting opinions across different groups of players. So, to cut a long story short, it is necessary for any developer to make choices in regards to what feedback they can and want to use. Not all ideas are realizable and not all ideas are in harmony.
This is where a central vision comes into play. Which, to me, describes the abstract principles & preferences of a lead developer which guide more specific decisions (f.e. we try to avoid mechanics that purely or primarily require real time for an ingame benefit). So a vision is not an exhaustive feature list or a detailed description of a final product. And the level of detail can vary wildly between vision statements. As MV noted elsewhere
Now, I do think that the product descriptions of Bannerlord go into a fair bit more detail than that. I also believe that most of us have some shared understanding of the core bits of what a Mount & Blade game offers - and that Bannerlord covers them to a degree that makes it recognizably Mount & Blade.
So, to clarify - No, developers don't just all do their own thing. Armagan deeply cares about the project and tends to be involved, on some level, with the vast majority of development. Similarly, community feedback is taken into account, but it informs rather than makes decisions. (Which is, of course, not just down to vision, but also mundane challenges - sometimes an idea that sounded good on paper can't be made to work or has to be pushed back or even dropped due to other priorities.) You may not like or agree with all of the decisions being made and not all of them may necessarily turn out to be the right or best ones. But they must be made - and are made, from what I can tell, with the desire to create a better game.
I feel that part of the frustration comes from a lack of understanding / certainty about community feedback. So I will try to shine some light on the processes. To begin with, we gain and process information from players in a variety of ways. The most straight forward ones are probably our dump-uploader and technical support section. Anything that comes in through these avenues has a very high probability to be investigated. Naturally, it isn't just blind activity either - we try to prioritize problems along the lines of prominence, so that anything that impacts many players is resolved as soon as possible. I think this is particularly evident during the first few months of the Early Access where many patches focused on stabilizing the game. I know there are posts that don't much care for bug fixes or performance improvements, but to me, it was and is the right call to make sure that as many people as possible are able to play the game that they purchased.
The next most apparent avenue is the beta branch, which allows for a closer collaboration between developers and the community - and has verifiably led to good feature adjustments (the most recent example that comes to mind for me is the pillaging feature). Patches in general are, of course, always an opportunity for constructive discussion and so are the releases of our priority statements (where I believe a fair few questions are answered when players post them). Less overt, but also important, are things like the closed (and open) tests that are conducted with members of the multiplayer community as well as our direct lines of discussion with community volunteers or, for instance, the closed testing and workshops we did with some of our modders ahead of the release of the modding tools.
Beyond that, both individual developers (of whom not everyone may feel comfortable posting) as well as the community staff read through and take notes from our various community platforms and other outlets. This is processed both in unstructured, individual discussions as well as regular, dedicated meetings where we go over suggestions. Similarly, what we observe in the community discussions informs our internal prioritization as well. Which brings us to
The statements and video updates share a significant portion of the (short and long term) works that are actively in progress and have a reasonable degree of confidence that changes made to them during development won't betray the expectations that they generate. To me, this is a healthier approach than oversharing in a way that risks false expectations and thereby increases the very frustrations that are present in this thread (and the OP).
We most assuredly do have a vast backlog of tasks, but, for me, providing a public "final feature list" while the game is still heavily in development seems like it would either be misleading or constrain our ability to make adjustments. The current method allows us to share some information while retaining the agility to reevaluate our priorities as content is shared and new issues and feedback come up.
At the end of the day, it is a compromise between competing interests. Obviously, I understand that players want to know more. Especially when they care about a product. I also think that there has been progress in that regard. At the beginning of EA we had neither statements, nor video updates. These were introduced over time. Which I think is fair, because it is important to find the right balance between sharing information and prematurely building expectations - and that is a learning process.
Personally, I believe an opportunity for improvement could be slightly more elaborate statements. I know that a few players were irritated that we retained some prior bulletin points as we updated the SP statement. Of course, that is a necessity if the work on them continues - but it may be more engaging if we elaborated more on the status of the work. For instance, the Lord's Hall Fight has been with us for a while. At the end of December, we showcased the mission in a video update after we were reasonably happy with the prototype. Since then, we have been working on creating all the necessary scenes for other locations, hooking up the different stages within the campaign context (assault first, LH fight after), testing it, fixing various code and scene related problems and now we are looking at improving the AI to better handle the close-quarter context. So, very different stages of development - but still an ongoing work.
This is a difficult topic to discuss, because, of course, I agree that one should share and advertise what is in the game. (Just see the prior segment.) I also don’t know the detailed history given that I started working with the campaign in the Spring of 2019. So the best I can do is share some of my personal thoughts on the matter.
I do not believe that any of these statements were made with malicious intent. To me, it seems likely that TaleWorlds was simply trying to engage their community as they were developing the game. Could they have been more careful with what they were sharing? Probably. But then, it is incredibly difficult to project what will happen over the course of 8-10 years, so the only guarantee would be not to share. Could they have used more careful language? Probably. But then, I'm pretty sure that @Terco_Viejo is already at risk to suffer a stroke from all the mights, mays and maybes that I throw his way. And let's be honest, even if every sentence was labelled with a "Work in Progress / Subject to Change'' disclaimer (which probably most blogs have at least on their screenshots), it still builds expectations. And it's not really what this is about I think.
You and many other people care about the game and want to see it be the best that it can be. And many of the things listed in this topic are well liked by a number of folks. But there is no guarantee that I can give you that they will be in the base game in the way they were described some years ago - or at all. It is perfectly understandable that that is frustrating to you.
But, at the same time, I do want to point out that the development is ongoing. That is to say that some of these points as well as features & content not mentioned here may yet be included in the game. To me, our priority must, however, be with properly finalizing the features that are already in the game - while we also work on introducing new content.
... I spent most of Sunday on this and I need to get some other things done. So, for now, I will cut off here and try to find more time to discuss some of the individual feature / content bits in the future.
@five bucks
One side note.
Category 2 - Overworld
One side note.
Category 2 - Overworld
Actually it is possible to recruit, while being in an army, every time the leader makes a stop in a settlement (village and town).
guiskj
Squire
Yes and no. Technically yes, but the AI recruits immediately, leaving very little to no recruits left for the player to grab.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
@guiskj gets my point, but I'll amend the op to "can't recruit freely" to reflect it better @Spinozart1. re: our other discussion, spoilering it is a good idea to prevent it cluttering the thread, well put.
Feasts, manhunters, sword sisters, and skill books aren't "needed" in the sense that nobody needs any features in a video game. But they are wanted by heaps of players, expected and deserved by them because Taleworlds sold them Bannerlord as a sequel to the last Mount and Blade game, which comes with a natual expectation of a sequel being an improvement on the last game; and there are plenty of reasons why they would improve gameplay in a game which currently feels quite shallow, unimmersive, or frustrating in many areas.
Of course companies have to deliver what they advertise. How have you not heard of the concept of false advertising? And why would you even want them to be able to get away with lying? Why would Taleworlds deserve to get millions of dollars for false promises AND have you defend them for it? What do you stand to gain from that?
Not that I'm looking to sue Taleworlds or anything silly like that, though if they leave most features from Warband and the devblogs missing and leave many of the game's issues unfixed, I'll definitely be getting my refund at launch, and probably other people will too.
Buying an EA gives you a right to what they said/implied the EA would be; or else get your refund. But we would like to not refund, and instead get what we deserve and give TW our money. So, we give feedback.
"All companies" aren't as secretive as TW. There are heaps of game studios that publish roadmaps and communicate quite well with their customers.
The "hype" isn't the reason for the negativity around Bannerlord. The huge delays, the missing features from prior games in the series/devblogs, and the overall highly broken state of the game are.
"Your poll is a Yes or No type. That means a lot of people will select yes while not agreeing with all the points." - They will choose yes if they feel that the majority of the list represents their wants, so the end result is a list that the majority of the community agrees satisfies the majority of their wants. And what alternative did you want, anyway- did you expect everyone in the community to agree on everything? Since everyone can't have everything, it's always going to be a question of (a) what the majority wants, and (b) what people have a right to expect.
"Regarding the voters, we already know that a lot of them are not satisfied, and will just say yes. Not that they completely agree, but just because they are angry." - You accuse me of assumptions but this is a massive one.
Overall I think you're just nitpicking the list to make minor issues seem like they invalidate it. For example your complaint about the language chosen is a bit ridiculous when English is the most spoken language on the Internet (60% of sites) and a huge amount of the world's Internet-using population speak English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population
I never called Armagan "devilish," don't put words in my mouth. I just said the plan for Bannerlord is all in his head, making it difficult to coordinate.
Not just Mexxico but any of the community managers as well, the fact they constantly have to cross-check with other divisions of TW about decisions and often can't even get a straight answer then indicates that (a) there is no unified design document everyone is working based on, and (b) there are communication issues.
Not that I'm looking to sue Taleworlds or anything silly like that, though if they leave most features from Warband and the devblogs missing and leave many of the game's issues unfixed, I'll definitely be getting my refund at launch, and probably other people will too.
Buying an EA gives you a right to what they said/implied the EA would be; or else get your refund. But we would like to not refund, and instead get what we deserve and give TW our money. So, we give feedback.
"All companies" aren't as secretive as TW. There are heaps of game studios that publish roadmaps and communicate quite well with their customers.
The "hype" isn't the reason for the negativity around Bannerlord. The huge delays, the missing features from prior games in the series/devblogs, and the overall highly broken state of the game are.
"Your poll is a Yes or No type. That means a lot of people will select yes while not agreeing with all the points." - They will choose yes if they feel that the majority of the list represents their wants, so the end result is a list that the majority of the community agrees satisfies the majority of their wants. And what alternative did you want, anyway- did you expect everyone in the community to agree on everything? Since everyone can't have everything, it's always going to be a question of (a) what the majority wants, and (b) what people have a right to expect.
"Regarding the voters, we already know that a lot of them are not satisfied, and will just say yes. Not that they completely agree, but just because they are angry." - You accuse me of assumptions but this is a massive one.
Overall I think you're just nitpicking the list to make minor issues seem like they invalidate it. For example your complaint about the language chosen is a bit ridiculous when English is the most spoken language on the Internet (60% of sites) and a huge amount of the world's Internet-using population speak English. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_English-speaking_population
I never called Armagan "devilish," don't put words in my mouth. I just said the plan for Bannerlord is all in his head, making it difficult to coordinate.
Not just Mexxico but any of the community managers as well, the fact they constantly have to cross-check with other divisions of TW about decisions and often can't even get a straight answer then indicates that (a) there is no unified design document everyone is working based on, and (b) there are communication issues.
Excellent post that sums up the way I feel. I'm really happy every time I can change something on this list to green. We are definitely making progress; my only worries are the very slow pace at which that progress is happening, and not knowing whether everything on this list is going to make it into the final game.
最后编辑:
This works great if you just imagine random things I never said.
Almost everyone liked him. But it wasn't because he was some kind of deep character with his own motivations. It was because he kept the Swadian Knights from dying even while sleeping on the job.I liked him.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
I thought his backstory was good actually, the bickering with Artimenner, and the unanswered question of whether he was a quack or a medical genius ahead of his time. Almost all of the Warband companions had much better backstories than the Bannerlord ones and I still remember most of the details to this day. The fanbase definitely still remembers Rolf of the House of Rolf.
Rolf of the House of Rolf the legend.
Yes I think so too. The companions gave a bit of flavour if you read their backstory. I personally liked taking companions of which I liked the backstory and gave them roles that fit to that backstory. But I agree the difference to what we have in Bannerlord isn't great.
So do I. It isn't because the writing was good (it was about as bad as Bannerlord) but because it was the same. Every. Single. Playthrough.
And when I say the character doesn't have their own motivations I mean they never do anything without the player, with one exception that proved to be the most unpopular aspect of the companion system in Warband. Like, my go-to example is Matheld: she straight tells you that her purpose in Calradia is to get enough money and men under her command to sail back to Nordland and reclaim her thanedom. But she never will.
*As in, one of the most common settings in mods was turning off companion bickering.
That's easy: Rhaegea.
People spammed out every BL-related venue with those stupid memes about her and it wasn't helped that her faction in-game literally shortened Southern IMPerial. Everything that touched BL was up to the eyeballs in it.
Companion names change every playthrough but there are a few that know at least one or two of the backstories.
最后编辑:
Oh thank you for confirming that.
Now I understand why I don't see the recruit system as an issue.
I always take time to improve my relation with some notables before going further in the war.
And it makes the relation system even more strategical than simply having access to elite troops.
I can't recall a single name of companions and lords from warband.
D0c1
Knight at Arms
isilfield the black or however it's written.
derthert
calatild
unqid
monchug
svana
ira
caladog
mesui
abagai
regardless. as apocal said, warband's companions are remembered because people have played the game for hundreds of hours with the same names.
