Edit: and honestly, what bothers me the most is that there are huge problems with the core gameplay that are not being addressed, or even acknowledged. Mounted units can not hit troops on foot consistently. Collisions between units are wonky. The sense of progression is hit and miss, between the fact that armors are only mildly relevant and the leveling progression (plus the fact that unit hitpoints don't really change between low level units and high level units). Companions feel like placeholders (and honestly they kind of are). After release I was one of the most vocal proponents of "let them work, they will fix things eventually". Now I am like... will they though? I still don't think that raging and absolute negativity in the forum are going to help, but I can definitely understand the frustration.
If there is a ticket in support, it is acknowledged. Maybe it is not fixed as fast as some people hope for, but all reports are checked. (You may feel that the support responses are too generic, but what it actually means if they say "forwarded to developers" is that we have an internal ticket open for processing.)
I know that mounted archers are being checked, I am not sure about collisions, but if you link me the support ticket I can check, if sense of progression refers to skill progression, it is part of our current priorities (listed in the according thread), if it is about becoming a superhero (for lack of a better term) or deeply realistic damage and armor models, IMO that it is not part of what M&B is about. Having said that, further balancing is always possible. For companions, I think we will explore avenues to improve the existing system, but not build a separate system for "unique" companions as some have suggested.
But he is talking about putting pressure on the company in general - and that's negative for the company.
That statement and what followed, alongside other not so constructive discussion, is also negative for me as a developer for the reasons I laid out (which don't bother with hurt feelings n what not
). And just to be clear - I don't mind if people vent their frustrations in a variety of ways. It is human and sometimes all we can bother to do. All I'm saying is that I don't believe in the notion that it is the way to go to help with development or facilitate a particular outcome moreso than constructive activity.
I'm not saying that you should consider "This game sucks" type of comments right away, but if a person is criticising the game in a salty/negative manner but with a proper language, it doesn't make that criticism invalid.
Sure and I (and others) do try to read and discuss a broad range of feedback in structured and unstructured ways. Still, the more destructive the feedback is wrapped, the harder it becomes to process.
Not an example to this - but at least people deserve an explanation about the features scrapped/removed/kept on-hold so that they can adjust their expectations about Taleworlds' vision
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/what-we-have-in-bannerlord-pre-release-dev-diaries-but-not-in-game-by-now.436973/ This thread is 2 months old - btw.
Lots of the things noted there are before my time in the company, but even skimming over the first couple of points, I can tell that at least some have been responded to (like the peace treaties [function as kingdom decisions now], prisoner barter [ai does it, even against player will atm, giving the player a choice is in our list of current priorities] and village upgrades[was attempted, couldn't be made to work as desired and was ultimately dropped for the management at the walled center level]) . Not in a dedicated topic like what you linked, but throughout the forum discussions. I don't think I will be able to go over both that and this thread this weekend but I will put it into my forum backlog heh
I think most people generally just want to know whether TW has the intention or desire to begin adding more substantial features in future updates, or clarification on whether certain aspects of the game will be expanded upon at all (like diplomacy/interaction between factions, my personal gripe) or whether they will remain basically as they are. Since a lot of the stuff that was planned seems to have been scrapped.
I understand that and we do try to provide some insight into priorities through the dedicated SP and MP topics (where I also responded to quite a few inquiries) and our (likely more entertaining) video development updates. We have, however, decided against sharing overly much from the long term backlog - which to me is an acceptable compromise between different interests. It is certainly more information than prior to having the roadmap statements & video updates, yet helps to avoid making false promises / hyping people for things that are very much in flux and may not work out at all. IMO it also allows for a useful amount of agility in our development.
Finally, substantial is very much in the eye of the beholder. To me, a fair bit of what we are working on is substantial (and takes into account player feedback). I think one of the frustrations is that a lot of it goes towards addressing base game functionality and / or introducing or wrapping up known content rather than new shiny stuff.
Right but management is exactly the problem here. Management is where the vision comes from, not the individual developers.
I see these types of post a fair bit recently and find them a bit odd. The development of the game is primarily coordinated between Armagan and the various development teams. You may not disagree with all the choices made, but there isn't a "suit" slapping our hand for shareholder interests.