Give us a new Roadmap, or re-affirm the already existing Roadmap.

[Androme1]

Are we going to see missing Warband/Viking Conquest content in Bannerlord, or are we not going to? The current Roadmap suggests we won't.

The playerbase wants all these missing features from Warband/Viking Conquest, as has been forwarded to Taleworlds many times now throughout these past few months.

We'd like a new Roadmap where you promise us these missing pieces of content, if it is indeed your intention to work on implementing these. If not, then we'd like a confirmation that the current Roadmap is still the plan you're working with.

Roadmap in question: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...ing-plans-for-singleplayer-and-engine.422296/

 

[Wolfmensch007]

I like taleworlds and i like all the missing Features from warband/VC too be implemented but i dont need a roadmap if Taleworlds just says "yes we will implement those missing Features" then thats enough for me. I Trust Taleworlds and in their word.

 

[Radamant]

Roadmaps for more than 1 month are harder that you think in software development.

 

[Craven4]

Wouldnt it be great to have a roadmap that was a couple words or a single sentence for the plans for each big patch 1.5, 1.6, 1.7... to 2.0 so that there is a direction we are all headed in.

 

[Timmortal]

Please dont include me as im clearly part of "the playerbase" and i dont want to be taken hostage in your constant rage posts. There are certainly features from those games that would be nice getting, but others i would rather be without. I dont want Taleworlds to feel locked into some choice they made months before, when they find out it will never work properly, like feats in Warband, just because they "promised" it in a road map.

 

[Wolfmensch007]

I think we can be lucky to even play this game, some guy from south USA complained that they dont even have servers to play on.

 

[NLCRich]

There is a lot of uncertainty in programming. I have done professional application work and it happens regularly where one fails to meet the original timeline goals. Even when we set these, we put them out a month or more even for just minor feature changes. It happens all too often where you get into trying to develop a feature to find that there is no way for it to actually fit within the original framework, so the features end up needing a recode of the source code. This can set the timeline way back. When dealing with customer corporations, this is very common place, and hardly ever results in dissatisfaction of the customer so long as in the end they get what they need. In some cases it gets pushed back several different times. I think people in the corporate world understand this sort of thing happens everywhere.

However, game consumers are not so understanding. If they set a timeline and can't reach it, you always get some troll going on about broken promises. The result is most game developers don't release any information about what they are doing until the work is almost done, don't set time frames until they can see the end of the road, and try not to make any guarantees.

 

[bestmods168]

Probably the reason they dont give a road map of when xyz will be done is because they dont know how to do it. They said ships will be down the road. Like after full release. I bet if a modder got ships working. Suddenly it will be implemented quietly in this next patch.

 

[NLCRich]

Wouldnt it be great to have a roadmap that was a couple words or a single sentence for the plans for each big patch 1.5, 1.6, 1.7... to 2.0 so that there is a direction we are all headed in.

I am almost positive that internally they have something like this. However, these lists are always dynamic, meaning there are daily changes to it. Something from 1.5 gets pushed to 1.6 Something originally set for 1.7 is determined to be needed earlier and goes down to 1.5. This kind of thing happens on a daily basis. So whatever they would put on there would be inaccurate just days later.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

I think we can be lucky to even play this game, some guy from south USA complained that they dont even have servers to play on.

Lmfao

 

[StewVader]

There is a lot of uncertainty in programming. I have done professional application work and it happens regularly where one fails to meet the original timeline goals. Even when we set these, we put them out a month or more even for just minor feature changes. It happens all too often where you get into trying to develop a feature to find that there is no way for it to actually fit within the original framework, so the features end up needing a recode of the source code. This can set the timeline way back. When dealing with customer corporations, this is very common place, and hardly ever results in dissatisfaction of the customer so long as in the end they get what they need. In some cases it gets pushed back several different times. I think people in the corporate world understand this sort of thing happens everywhere.

However, game consumers are not so understanding. If they set a timeline and can't reach it, you always get some troll going on about broken promises. The result is most game developers don't release any information about what they are doing until the work is almost done, don't set time frames until they can see the end of the road, and try not to make any guarantees.

Yeah but this is in EA. The whole point of EA is communication and engagement. To me your whole argument is unsatisfactory because they explicitly said on their EA banner that they wanted to work with the community. Not sure how that works if we never know what they INTEND or want the game to be.

Sorry but no, its EA, and there is a long way to go, and we need more communication and transparency from TW about what the game will eventually be. Purchasing the game in EA is an understanding that the game is incomplete, but also includes an understanding that the customer will be aware of where the game is going. We don't know what they expect Bannerlord to be at release, or how close it is to being done.

 

[babelfisch]

Speak for yourself.

 

[StewVader]

Please dont include me as im clearly part of "the playerbase" and i dont want to be taken hostage in your constant rage posts. There are certainly features from those games that would be nice getting, but others i would rather be without. I dont want Taleworlds to feel locked into some choice they made months before, when they find out it will never work properly, like feats in Warband, just because they "promised" it in a road map.

I think by "rage post" you mean well reasoned and objective. The OP's current post, and previous post, are all OBJECTIVE and reasonable complaints about the state of the game, and the LACK of information about development. As EA customers, who purchased an incomplete game, wouldn't you agree there is some basis for an EXPECTATION of transparency regarding where the development is going?

For example, if I had known that Bannerlord was just going to be hack and slash with a "sprinkling of strategy" (Callum's words) I never would've purchased it. The expectation was Bannerlord would be MORE, BETTER, SUPERIOR (whatever adjective you want), than Warband, Modded Warband, and VC - it currently is not, and the current official roadmap from TW suggest it may never be.

Asking for a updated roadmap is not unreasonable. It should be the norm to get a roadmap every few months, SINCE ITS EA.

 

[Timmortal]

I think by "rage post" you mean well reasoned and objective. The OP's current post, and previous post, are all OBJECTIVE and reasonable complaints about the state of the game, and the LACK of information about development. As EA customers, who purchased an incomplete game, wouldn't you agree there is some basis for an EXPECTATION of transparency regarding where the development is going?

For example, if I had known that Bannerlord was just going to be hack and slash with a "sprinkling of strategy" (Callum's words) I never would've purchased it. The expectation was Bannerlord would be MORE than Warband, and VC - it currently is not, and the current official roadmap from TW suggest it won't be.

Asking for a updated roadmap, is not unreasonable, it should be the norm to get a roadmap every few months, SINCE ITS EA.

So posts about the game being "doomed" and "abandoned" and so on and so on are " well reasoned and objective." all i can say is lol. I dont need a roadmap that will possibly get them locked in on things that are wrong for the game. Also the second something in that roadmap is changed or late, people like you and OP will come out with posts about lies and the devs not listening to advice, becuse they did not pick what you wanted, but what some other group wanted.

 

[Stromming]

It's been almost 4 months since the last roadmap, I think it is high time we get a new one, since I am fairly sure we have already gotten updates containing most of stuff listed on it.

 

[Stromming]

So posts about the game being "doomed" and "abandoned" and so on and so on are " well reasoned and objective." all i can say is lol. I dont need a roadmap that will possibly get them locked in on things that are wrong for the game. Also the second something in that roadmap is changed or late, people like you and OP will come out with posts about lies and the devs not listening to advice, becuse they did not pick what you wanted, but what some other group wanted.

Thats extremely narrow minded. We aren't saying the game is doomed, or abandoned, or trash and always will be trash.
We are looking for more communication from TW because they are way too quiet.

We also aren't so stupid that we don't understand that roadmaps can change, the whole point is to simply give the community an idea of what is going on instead of being completely in the dark.

 

[StewVader]

So posts about the game being "doomed" and "abandoned" and so on and so on are " well reasoned and objective." all i can say is lol. I dont need a roadmap that will possibly get them locked in on things that are wrong for the game. Also the second something in that roadmap is changed or late, people like you and OP will come out with posts about lies and the devs not listening to advice, becuse they did not pick what you wanted, but what some other group wanted.

All they have to do is be transparent and EXPLAIN why the decisions were made. That is probably good enough for 99% of people.

"This just didn't work out, it didn't improve the player experience, etc etc".

The PROBLEM IS, there is little explanation or discussion about why decisions were made, or any evidence that player suggestions for features/content is being taken seriously. It's just an overall lack of communication and transparency that makes me angry.


EA is about trust, trust is developed through communication. The communication is adhoc at best, and lacks transparency about where TW wants the game to be at release. It's really not unreasonable to ask for transparency during EA - there is an expectation of communication and development explanation.

 

[Stromming]

I'd like to point out that no TW staff is usually commenting on the topics requesting more communication even though they are for sure reading the topics.
I think that says alot.

The guy whose job is to be a community manager, to interact with and manage the community, is only posting on topics that praise TW or when he gets @.

Why is it that whenever someone asks for a roadmap or more information, we get ghosted?

 

[Timmortal]

Thats extremely narrow minded. We aren't saying the game is doomed, or abandoned, or trash and always will be trash.
We are looking for more communication from TW because they are way too quiet.

We also aren't so stupid that we don't understand that roadmaps can change, the whole point is to simply give the community an idea of what is going on instead of being completely in the dark.

I was not speaking about you was i? I was speaking about OP, of whose post i had come acroos several just today using such language. Again this post was not about you, but theres so many negative posters on this forum who would leap at the chance to call Taleworlds liars, they already take up far to big a portion of this forum. I have nothing against constructive critisism put into the suggestions part of the forum. Saying Taleworlds are liars who abbandoned the game is not constructive critisism.

 

[Timmortal]

All they have to do is be transparent and EXPLAIN why the decisions were made. That is probably good enough for 99% of people.

"This just didn't work out, it didn't improve the player experience, etc etc".

The PROBLEM IS, there is little explanation or discussion about why decisions were made, or any evidence that player suggestions for features/content is being taken seriously. It's just an overall lack of communication and transparency that makes me angry.


EA is about trust, trust is developed through communication. The communication is adhoc at best, and lacks transparency about where TW wants the game to be at release. It's really not unreasonable to ask for transparency during EA - there is an expectation of communication and development explanation.

Well seems they hired a new community manager yesterday, so hopefully communication will be upped, i dont disagree with more communication being needed, it has been on the low side, but i dont think a roadmap is what is needed.