-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Early Access Confirmed
- Thread starter RKStranger
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
that's not what happened / happens. What happens is that they start firing every single descent person in the company because they need ant-minded zombies that will follow orders rather than be talented / creative. It's the main reason MS appeared, Apple, Google... These 3 a perfect examples of how corporate minded fools when driven by greed only really open a vacuum for talented and envisioned people to fill... Every single monster company of today was built over the stupidity of corporate minds' mistakes. I mean, MS was done to avoid IBM, just like Apple, both succeeded where IBM has failed miserably. Google's another story, yet, their enlightened view of how a company should be run makes them the most valuable and the biggest most successful in history, I'd simply say: watch and learn young padawan. But instead the game industry has been devoured by corporate mummies that are like minded towards these pig-factories like IBM was back in the day, so yeah, it's gonna be bad until we get an "Video-Game Apple / Microsoft" that leans more towards Google's example than anything else.CaptainLee said:
Basically the real villain's always greed accompanied by narrow-minded antiquate stupidity.
And also, EA doesn't exclusively produces trash, their originals are okay, what they do is destroy franchises that they didn't create themselves. A common practice for the past ten years which not only haunts EA but other companies as well, due to narrow-minded idiots, as I've said. IE: Bethesda -> Fallout series for one. (the acclaimed todd howard is one of those imbeciles)
xdj1nn said:
xdj1nn said:
Yeah that's kinda the gist of what i said. The monetisations alone spiked the share prices so much no shareholders are going to tolerate their permament removal from EA games in the future.
I'm sure this has been said before, but I won't be bothered to read 19 pages of posts. My biggest fear with EA is having to restart my character with each update like back in the day with the original title. Oh sure, I could import/export, but that didn't give me my fiefs or equipment or army or status...
Do you expect to play the same character for like a whole year!? That's some investment I'd say!Triune Impurity Rites 999 said:
Anyway, in M&B I always like to start fresh, specially given that I take long pauses (sometimes years) from playing it.
If I do feel like or know that some inconvenient update will come I sell everything I have, export/import and there you go, filhty rich already lvled guy, things go much easier from there onwards.
Yes I do, actually, because I don't play everyday. Maybe a handful of hours a week. I have other interests that keep me occupied. Books, miniatures, education, wife, family, books again, etc. So when I do return I'd rather prefer not starting over otherwise I get caught in a vicious cycle of rerunning the first "half" of the game.
Triune Impurity Rites 999 said:
Could you potentially wait for the full release then? I enjoy restarting, the early game in mount and blade is usually my favorite! I wouldn't mind being forced to restart by early access, also early access gives us the opportunity to spot and report bugs like good little scouts.
I could wait, definitely. However I understand also the value of EA and sorting out bugs. But I would like EA to be a more stable version than the hilarity that was Mount&Blade EA back in the early 2000's.
I never really mind when early access games wipe progress. Maybe its just because ive dealt with it so many times now, but I think it's moreso because I'm just glad to be able to play the games at all and I make new games so often anyway.
I know lots of people like to stick with one save for a veeery long time though and it would suck for those people, but again at least you can play.
I know lots of people like to stick with one save for a veeery long time though and it would suck for those people, but again at least you can play.
You know the purpose of early access is to test functionality & bug hunt. If you never started over, how would you catch any bugs that popped up in early game content since you last played it? By letting players continue their saves in new versions during EA, the pool of testers is reduced to those who want to restart, throwing a smaller net for bugs. There will surely be built-in cheats for reaching end-game quickly, but again it is detrimental to the testing process to let people skip interactions with various systems. Importing an established character is thus less useful for testing. For example, what if there's a bug that breaks dialogues for joining factions? A fresh start would encounter it very quickly, but an established character might never experience it.
I mean, that's a good point, but unless they have some feature reporting bugs, I don't know how reliable a tester I might be. The one time I actually tried was with 7 Days to Die on Xbox and then the company financing the port failed and fired everyone ... 
I don't anticipate the EA period being very long.
It's not as though they need funding to complete the project, like a lot of other Early Access games do. And Taleworld's seem to be pretty reluctant to put the game in the hands of the public until it's very nearly finished. I shouldn't think there'll even be very many versions and savewipes before it goes to full release anyway.
It's not as though they need funding to complete the project, like a lot of other Early Access games do. And Taleworld's seem to be pretty reluctant to put the game in the hands of the public until it's very nearly finished. I shouldn't think there'll even be very many versions and savewipes before it goes to full release anyway.
I kind of imagined it would be a couple months prior to full release, just to see if early access players can find any bugs that can be quickly patched prior to full release, followed by a final update prior to full release, wiping everyone's progress. I mean, with the funding and time they've taken in development, it doesn't seem like they should need a super long period of beta testing. But who knows.
I definitely think this title should be in EA as soon as possible. Bug-hunting, figuring out what modders actually want, etc. will take a year or so.
Yes, a year. Not a couple of months to basically just beta-test. I hope they're wise enough to do it slow and go for the long game, sales-wise.
Just based on the features we now know are in, I'm a little worried that they don't know what the modding community's expectations are; too much stuff sounds like it's hard-coded, there's been no coherent discussion of callbacks, no real explanation of the workflows for many things that need to be clear at release (like, putting in a new custom sword that will show up in the shops should be a specific tutorial, same with armor workflows, imo) etc., etc.
I could care less about game-wipes, although I honestly expect the engine won't have all of the issues we saw in Warband, where (for example) data objects couldn't be merely re-ordered in the bytecode without causing a problem, because they used ints to store object references, instead of being sensible and using a string (even back when the engine was made, that was Premature Optimization at its finest). Things like this need to be caught early and fixed, if they want the game to be a hit with dozens of big mods supporting sales into the far future (which is what we'd all like to see).
I know I'll buy it when it comes out, but honestly, based on what we've seen thus far, I'm afraid it'll be Warband, but with fewer ways to mod it deeply and a much more complicated asset workflow, which sounds like a Fallout 4 type of game (that I wouldn't want to mod; pretty much all of the big mods here are effectively TCs or major conversions of Vanilla).
Yes, a year. Not a couple of months to basically just beta-test. I hope they're wise enough to do it slow and go for the long game, sales-wise.
Just based on the features we now know are in, I'm a little worried that they don't know what the modding community's expectations are; too much stuff sounds like it's hard-coded, there's been no coherent discussion of callbacks, no real explanation of the workflows for many things that need to be clear at release (like, putting in a new custom sword that will show up in the shops should be a specific tutorial, same with armor workflows, imo) etc., etc.
I could care less about game-wipes, although I honestly expect the engine won't have all of the issues we saw in Warband, where (for example) data objects couldn't be merely re-ordered in the bytecode without causing a problem, because they used ints to store object references, instead of being sensible and using a string (even back when the engine was made, that was Premature Optimization at its finest). Things like this need to be caught early and fixed, if they want the game to be a hit with dozens of big mods supporting sales into the far future (which is what we'd all like to see).
I know I'll buy it when it comes out, but honestly, based on what we've seen thus far, I'm afraid it'll be Warband, but with fewer ways to mod it deeply and a much more complicated asset workflow, which sounds like a Fallout 4 type of game (that I wouldn't want to mod; pretty much all of the big mods here are effectively TCs or major conversions of Vanilla).
xenoargh said:
I don't know about modding, so I'm perfectly happy to be corrected on this, but I'd have thought they wouldn't want people to get their teeth into modding until the full game is out. If people start using mods during early access, it'd screw up the bug fixing because everyone would be using different versions of the game, would they?
