Give TW a break guys.

[Bloc]

us moderators deem 'fit' for criticism

Well then have fun with thread and shutting other people just because they said a game mechanic isn't working - since you say it's flaming for some reason. Because that's what I got from your previous statement. Forum is already dying thanks to this and let's hope that it won't be same when the game released ( if that happens in anywhere soon )

you cannot expect them to just sift through criticism and sometimes even hate comments everyday and not be affected by it

Hate comments like "Die TW" isn't what I'm saying as criticism. But if someone says "Archers are bad" then devs won't feel offended or feel bad. If they do, it's their own problem. They don't decide those features individually. They "raise" concerns in meetings if they like and that's get decided in there, as a team. I'm not saying forum should contain only negative things. People can support TW's changes and such. And that we already have. Check any version changelog thread, you will see lots of thanks, well-done type of message. There is a reason why people like certain developers individually. Because they are showing their work and passion.
People are not obliged to balance anything. They can be salty if they want. It's the company's decision whether to check why that guy is salty or not.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Hate comments like "Die TW" isn't what I'm saying as criticism. But if someone says "Archers are bad" then devs won't feel offended or feel bad. If they do, it's their own problem. They don't decide those features individually.

Now youre just pulling something out of the hat. What i think he ment by that is that people saying that they are only bad without any really experience of it just because they felt like it then push for it so to speak its bad...-Even if the company does have the responsibility to check it though and make the best decission which can be questionable at times-......Ive noticed this many times along with one handed spear... that it wasnt that legit in the first place---- since they havnt got any experience only judged by first feelings and agendas....Archery nerf was needed for the player...but not for the AI in my opinion if so, since i didnt experience any major trouble running around on the battlefield without it. Same with Sturgian troops as i mentioned. They where actually balanced before on the battlefield against the rest, except T4 spearmen who needed some slight change. But nope the crowd thought it was the troops so they changed that but in fact it was the map stuff and lords that was the problem

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Check any version changelog thread, you will see lots of thanks, well-done type of message. There is a reason why people like certain developers individually. Because they are showing their work and passion.
People are not obliged to balance anything. They can be salty if they want. It's the company's decision whether to check why that guy is salty or not.

They are showing their work and passion! Yes! Exactly. If you put out a poll with who your favorite Dev is, Mexxico would be on top of everyones list. Probably because he's the only one we know from these necks of the forum.

And I reckon thats where a lot of the frustration on these forums is coming from. Not having a clue what's gonna happen next. Development being slow isnt a problem. Not getting informed and being involved is the problem.

We're like children, tugging on the sleeve of a Dev. And if the kid gets ignored and keeps getting ignored, it starts asking for attention in a different way. By acting out. But its all done out of love and passion for this game.

 

[Bloc]

What he ment by that is people saying that they are only bad without any really experience of it just because they felt like it

He is not talking about that at all. He is talking about the devs' feelings about negative and salty criticism. He didn't even use "experience".
Even if we assume that it's the case, saying something bad about a game mechanic "just because you felt like it" isn't bad. Because if people don't "feel" like they enjoy, it's the core problem of the game. Bannerlord is a game. Not a highly realistic combat game where only super competitive dudes fight. If people don't "feel" like enjoy because of a reason, they can state that.
Archery was an example by Fietta. I won't go into details of that. It has its own thread

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

He is not talking about that at all. He is talking about the devs' feelings about negative and salty criticism. He didn't even use "experience".
Even if we assume that it's the case, saying something bad about a game mechanic "just because you felt like it" isn't bad. Because if people don't "feel" like they enjoy, it's the core problem of the game. Bannerlord is a game. Not a highly realistic combat game where only super competitive dudes fight. If people don't "feel" like enjoy because of a reason, they can state that.
Archery was an example by Fietta. I won't go into details of that. It has its own thread

No but you need to also think about everyone as an company.. since what you change also affects them all or can do. Thats why it takes serious decision making to change things. Since ex now i feel as an customer that all these complaints have made the game easier and takes away the fun of challenge which i like, now when you nerf AI things here and there and buff armors and such (heck even took away my fav unit Ulfhednars)... and this since people dont understand the game or want to make an effort so to speak. However that should be fixed with difficulty settings. But since some people are playing at highest and want to change from that standpoint so it becomes better and more convenient for them..... then you see where the problem lays right ?

But then again the company should make that balance to their own since its their piece of art that going to be remembered so to speak, If they want it to be remembered as an half effort made one *caught* like Dragonage 2, well we have to see

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I think people don't realise that the process was never "they spent years making Bannerlord", it's more like "they spent a couple years developing it on the warband engine, scrapped it, created a new engine and started developing Bannerlord with the mount & blade team growing over time".

Is this the case? Everything I've seen has suggested that the first screenshots are from a new engine that slowly morphed into what we have today, and that they never worked on warband directly. If you know otherwise please correct me because I find this stuff really interesting, but its always seemed to me like a kind of fan truism that keeps getting repeated with no evidence.

Hate comments like "Die TW" isn't what I'm saying as criticism.

I hear they say this a lot on the German forums. Bann in mein aupinionn

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Is this the case? Everything I've seen has suggested that the first screenshots are from a new engine that slowly morphed into what we have today, and that they never worked on warband directly. If you know otherwise please correct me because I find this stuff really interesting, but its always seemed to me like a kind of fan truism that keeps getting repeated with no evidence.



I hear they say this a lot on the German forums. Bann in mein aupinionn

 

[MostBlunted]

They are showing their work and passion! Yes! Exactly. If you put out a poll with who your favorite Dev is, Mexxico would be on top of everyones list. Probably because he's the only one we know from these necks of the forum.

Because he's the deveoper TW deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our developer. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark developer.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Because he's the deveoper TW deserves needs right now, but not the one it needs right now deserves. So we'll hunt him. Because he can take it. Because he's not our developer. He's a silent guardian, a watchful protector. A dark developer.

I'd like to suggest a small correction..

 

[Earth Dragon]

Calling people outright fanboys is a joke.

Most threads are honestly people arguing over how much of a priority one thing should be over another.

Getting Camelry, camels on the markets, horse breeding, and different color patterns as different items are all important to me. Getting skills all implemented before changing anything else other then bugs. Get all maps finished THEN work on pathing issues since the two seem to be oddly linked.

And, for me, the Conquered Fief voting bug where it keeps dropping is game-breaking, and I have stopped playing. Game breaking is an individual preference. Saying something isn’t just means it isn’t for you (and no one should have a problem with rebuttals)

Posting threads in these complaints doesn’t make me a troll.

Rebutting other arguments different priorities doesn't make me a fanboy.

We all have different preferences on what gameplay features are important and what things would keep us more involved/enrich the game faster. Thankfully this isn’t Twitter where the moderators pick a side and start to block anything and anyone who disagrees.

As long as people aren’t name calling and making accusations as to one’s character, It’s all good

 

[Fietta]

Is this the case? Everything I've seen has suggested that the first screenshots are from a new engine that slowly morphed into what we have today, and that they never worked on warband directly. If you know otherwise please correct me because I find this stuff really interesting, but its always seemed to me like a kind of fan truism that keeps getting repeated with no evidence.

I've seen it being said somewhere, although I'm unsure as to where. However, looking at old BL screenshots from 2012, it's extremely 'warbandesque', but just with more graphical fidelity, ghastly amounts of 'bloom' to mask the appearance and horses appeared to be identical. Considering they just finished developing Warband and announced Bannerlord a year after, it's safe to assume that the BL engine didn't exist then, and the the development screenshots were that from the old engine. It takes numerous years to develop your own engine, hence why most developers just use UE4, Unity etc. it's quite complex. You also can't really develop a game until the majority of an engine has been built.

隐藏: Image

It's quite evident in this 2013 screenshot, the terrain is similar to warbands, the trees, the UI and the horse is practically a copy-paste. They've just added better lighting/bloom with better textures (looks like two years of work). Nothing in this screenshot is remotely similar to actual Bannerlord, probably because they used the Warband engine.

---

I think people using 'It's been X amount of years', should probably be debunked, they should be more concerned about the progress of EA if anything.

 

[Akka]

Hey guys, I see a lot of unnecessary complains here and recently a thread was posted and people were complaining that the development speed is absurdly slow

The thing is, THAT'S TRUE. The dev speed IS absurdly slow. Many problems that external modders have been able to fix in a handful of hours without having the code, have been lingering for months now. Some of them are literally a comment in a line of code. That's just not excusable.

the communication with devs is always lame

That is false, though. There is not enough communication, but when there is, it's usually interesting and insightful.

I just wanted to say that have some patience

The game has been in development for TEN YEARS and has been in EA for what, eight months or so, with changes clearly not big enough to be justified by the time lapse.
I'm sorry, but you just can't require "patience" at this point. Results are needed.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I've seen it being said somewhere, although I'm unsure as to where. However, looking at old BL screenshots from 2012, it's extremely 'warbandesque',

The end user look of a game has surprisingly little to do with the engine. If you used the same lighting setup between two engines, it would be almost impossible for even the people who made the engine to tell the difference. When you get lots of games in the same engine that look the same, that's because they've been lazy and haven't changed the default assets at all. A lot of Unreal engine games for example have the exact same motion blur and bloom because they don't know how / can't be bothered to change them from the default settings you get when you create an empty level.

The reason early screenshots look "warbandesque" is much more to do with the fact that many of the background assets are basically warband assets, or look a lot like them. However I can guarantee you that if they had announced a game with a completely different setting, with new assets but in the same engine, nobody would have noticed.

Which one of these looks more like warband to you?

隐藏

隐藏

The answer is obviously the first one because the colour scheme is the same and some of the assets look familiar, but other than that there is no way to tell what engine either of these are made in. Engines are mainly a developer thing that generally doesn't impact the end user.

Considering they just finished developing Warband and announced Bannerlord a year after, it's safe to assume that the BL engine didn't exist then, and the the development screenshots were that from the old engine. It takes numerous years to develop your own engine, hence why most developers just use UE4, Unity etc. it's quite complex. You also can't really develop a game until the majority of an engine has been built.

It depends. Someone who knew what they were doing could probably throw together a phong type renderer (like warband) in a few days, since a lot of this stuff is in the public domain. It would be unusable except for showing assets, but that's all they need for making screenshots.

You could be right that they were just using a modified warband as a tool for showing the early screenshots, but I don't buy that they spent 2 years developing the game in this state before realising that warband is horrifying turkish spaghetti that is borderline unusable for modern games.

What did happen is that in 2014 they announced a switch from the old phong-type shaders to PBR, which is a system basically every game released after 2015 has used, but from what I understand only the engine developer has had to worry about that directly. Most of the assets were retained, and that warband-looking armour in one of the first screenshots is still in the game.

tl;dr I don't think that you can use the excuse that they spent 2 or 3 or however many years in warband before making a new engine, because there is no evidence for it.

 

[sniparsexe]

Is this the case? Everything I've seen has suggested that the first screenshots are from a new engine that slowly morphed into what we have today, and that they never worked on warband directly. If you know otherwise please correct me because I find this stuff really interesting, but its always seemed to me like a kind of fan truism that keeps getting repeated with no evidence.



I hear they say this a lot on the German forums. Bann in mein aupinionn

We know that they didn't finish the engine in 2014 they were still working on it, I know you can work on the game and on the engine at the same time but I also know it's really hard to do so, Source 2 engine and Half Life 2. from this video. (The video is in Turkish language but there are subtitles)

I doubt I can find it but IIRC they were looking for 3 software engineers to work on the game engine in early 2016. I'll try to find it but I highly doubt that I'll add this if I find it. So we can assume that the real development for Bannerlord we play now began in 2015-2016. And when you consider the update pacing I think 4-5 years real production makes sense

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

We know that they didn't finish the engine in 2014 they were still working on it

No engine is ever "finished". Developers will usually keep adding and modifying things even after the final release, as was the case with Warband. One of the blogs mentions that the engine developer was adding new rendering techniques as late as 2018:

Dev Blog 14/09/17 - TaleWorlds Entertainment

Dev Blog 22/02/18 - TaleWorlds Entertainment

www.taleworlds.com

IS THE ENGINE COMPLETELY FINISHED OR ARE CHANGES STILL BEING MADE TO IT?
“We are still making changes; we are constantly trying to improve visuals, performance, usability, modding etc. I would call the current state of the engine as almost finished, so you should perceive these changes as releasing updates and patches to it in-house. We built a very solid foundation over the years, so adding features and improvements is not disruptive to development. We will try to increase the quality of the engine even after release, and we will definitely use it for all projects for the foreseeable future.”

The distinction between engine and game is never clear cut anyway, an engine is just a name that developers give to code within a game that they think will get re-used a lot, usually code for CPU/GPU communication, but can also include things like physics calculations and navigation. Prior to the late 90s nobody even used the term game engine because the code base was too small to bother making this distinction, and generally coders could access the hardware directly without needing 6 years of computer science at university. Nowadays however, computers and the programmes they run are far too complex for any one person to manage all at once, so dividing the code between "engine" and "game" is something that happens out of necessity.

The idea that a development team has to wait until an engine is "finished" is kind of silly. Both the "game" and "engine" are just masses of code. If I was a coder in a new game, all I would need in order to start working is a very rough prototype to see stuff moving around in, and a good idea of how data and functions are going to be organised.

 

[Andrei[beast]]

The game has been in development for TEN YEARS and has been in EA for what, eight months or so, with changes clearly not big enough to be justified by the time lapse.
I'm sorry, but you just can't require "patience" at this point. Results are needed.

Literally the post above yours explains it's not exactly 10 years...
That being said i won't go further as i'm not sure on it either , but it still seems pretty legit.

 

[MostBlunted]

It's quite evident in this 2013 screenshot, the terrain is similar to warbands, the trees, the UI and the horse is practically a copy-paste. They've just added better lighting/bloom with better textures (looks like two years of work). Nothing in this screenshot is remotely similar to actual Bannerlord, probably because they used the Warband engine.

The new developed sheep texture was also not shown back then

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

The new developed sheep texture was also not shown back then

That one deserves an design of the year award

 

[ourgekj]

le problem with the actual developement pace is that it looks like they are 5 ppl working in the dad's garage. But they are almost 100 working at taleworlds on only 1 game.

7 months after EA release no major feature has been added to the game.


Just to remember the game was supposed to be released in 2016.

 

[Akka]

Literally the post above yours explains it's not exactly 10 years...

And literally the post below explains how the post above doesn't cut it.

That being said i won't go further as i'm not sure on it either , but it still seems pretty legit.

At best it's an explanation, not an excuse. 10 years is about twice as long as what is considered a long development for a game. We will wait (well, what choice do we have ? :p), but nobody can tell that people "should" be patient. They already have been.