How Is This Game Going?

[Knights of Ni]

Greetings. An enthusiastic player of Mount and Blade, long time since I've played it. I was wondering how the game is faring with patches, stability etc.

All the videos on YouTube are months old and the tone of it all was pretty negative. I haven't purchased it yet- how you do y'all find it now?

Thanks in advance for your time taken in reply. Best regards, C.

 

[five bucks]

Well, let me put it this way. I started off enthusiastic. My lowest expectation was that Bannerlord was going to be as good as M&B: Warband, plus with better graphics and better sieges that would make it worth the AAA purchase cost. That seemed like a really easy thing to accomplish for a large team with good funding and government backing.

The graphics are definitely better which is nice. The sieges have more gameplay variety, though they are also buggy. But as for being as good as Warband? Bannerlord is actually missing lots of features from Warband, a game made 10 years ago by a much smaller dev team. The game has gone backwards.

Worse, Taleworlds' official PR people will not even confirm whether these features are returning. To me, that says very worrying things about future development.

If going backwards from the prequel wasn't enough, obviously there are plenty of other major issues which have persisted for a long time.

• Sieges have lots of things wrong with them, for example: troops won't climb up a siege ladder, or won't use siege towers properly, making them pointless to build. Troops often will destroy the first gate to a castle but ignore the second one.
• There is only a very small amount of field battle maps available.
• Performance is very bad during sieges due to AI pathing issues.
• Armor has barely any effect on reducing damage at all, and troops do not defend themselves in battles, so even the largest battles in the game end very quickly, before there are any opportunities to execute tactics. This has the side effect of archers being overpowered.
• Morale doesn't work like they said it would in the developer blog. You can't use it to gain the advantage during battle, only to rout enemies once you've already clearly won.
• Spear-using troop AI, especially for cavalry, doesn't work correctly, making them quite weak. You can't get troops to brace spears in singleplayer (yet, to be fair this is an announced priority of theirs I am fairly confident will make it in).
• The different faction armies all feel quite similar in practice, mostly being able to field the same troops with just minor differences. Only a couple of factions have distinct strengths and weaknesses (for example, Battania can field every type of unit other factions can, and despite being Celtic-inspired, it has the most cavalry in its armies of any faction in the game!).
• The game lacks tactical depth (the four above points are major contributing reasons).
• War is declared for basically no reason (at least nothing visible to the player), unlike Warband where causes were always given: "we have declared war to reclaim lost territory," "we have declared war to curb the strength of this large faction", etc.
• The game's economy simulation is quite broken-- for example, high-level armor never spawns because all cities are too poor to produce it.
• Castles kind of have no useful function, and just drain your money when you own them. Food supply is such a big issue that it is difficult to garrison your cities and towns because you troops will all starve.
• The new smithing mechanic is unsatisfying and even Armagan has said it needs a rework.
• The Khuzait faction is overpowered due to getting horses for free, and having a very strong cultural bonus that lets their armies move even faster on the world map. The Sturgia faction is underpowered due to having its territory in a very spread out, vulnerable position that is cut in half so it's difficult to move armies across. Battania, which is supposed to be an underdog in the lore, is also overpowered.
• Crime, Rebellion, and Dynastic mechanics, the three main advertised new features, still aren't functional. Out of these, rebellion mechanics and dynastic mechanics have been making slow but noticeable progress at least.

Taleworlds' lack of communication, lack of progress, and lack of planning and organization which is obvious to the whole community at this point, has turned me bitter. Over the last 8 months, we have all watched the game make incredibly slow progress in a period of time where other 100-person studios would have been able to make an entire game. They've actually said they're unable to give us a roadmap of long term goals (only short-term, small-scope stuff) because "it's too difficult to communicate with everyone in different departments", since apparently they have no long term goals and just work on whatever they feel like, when it suits them. A tiny handful of people at the company seem to be doing all the work while other employees focus on important features like letting you go to the barber.

Here is the progress of note the game has made in the last 8 months:

• Performance has made significant improvements but still has notable issues.
• Map balance has improved; some factions used to take over the whole map in a few years, now factions are still imbalanced but no AI faction will take over the whole map in a normal playthrough.
• Lords have been given cheats so that they don't have armies full of recruits all the time anymore.
• Some alright quests were added, such as "sell this merchandise for me" or dedicating a tournament victory to a lady.
• About 10 new armor pieces and a bunch of weapon customization bits have been added, some town scenes have been added.
• Dynastic systems, clan simulation and kingdom management have improved a little bit.
• The single most important addition was modelling and map-making tools for modders to add assets to the game and add new scenes. However, we still don't have all the mod tools.
• Perk tree went from 50% functional to 90% functional. Levelling system got a little bit better.​

In its current state, I would not recommend buying the game. Not just because it's an incomplete and repetitive Early Access, but because at this rate of progress, I am doubting the game will even be as good as Warband by the time it comes out of EA.

 

[stevehoos]

Well, let me put it this way. I started off enthusiastic. My lowest expectation was that Bannerlord was going to be as good as M&B: Warband, plus with better graphics and better sieges that would make it worth the AAA purchase cost. That seemed like a really easy thing to accomplish for a large team with good funding and government backing.

The graphics are definitely better which is nice. The sieges have more gameplay variety, though they are also buggy. But as for being as good as Warband? Bannerlord is actually missing lots of features from Warband, a game made 10 years ago by a much smaller dev team. The game has gone backwards.

Worse, Taleworlds' official PR people will not even confirm whether these features are returning. To me, that says very worrying things about future development.

If going backwards from the prequel wasn't enough, obviously there are plenty of other major issues which have persisted for a long time.

• Sieges have lots of things wrong with them, for example: troops won't climb up a siege ladder, or won't use siege towers properly, making them pointless to build. Troops often will destroy the first gate to a castle but ignore the second one.
• There is only a very small amount of field battle maps available.
• Performance is very bad during sieges due to AI pathing issues.
• Armor has barely any effect on reducing damage at all, and troops do not defend themselves in battles, so even the largest battles in the game end very quickly, before there are any opportunities to execute tactics. This has the side effect of archers being overpowered.
• Morale doesn't work like they said it would in the developer blog. You can't use it to gain the advantage during battle, only to rout enemies once you've already clearly won.
• Spear-using troop AI, especially for cavalry, doesn't work correctly, making them quite weak. You can't get troops to brace spears in singleplayer (yet, to be fair this is an announced priority of theirs I am fairly confident will make it in).
• The different faction armies all feel quite similar in practice, mostly being able to field the same troops with just minor differences. Only a couple of factions have distinct strengths and weaknesses (for example, Battania can field every type of unit other factions can, and despite being Celtic-inspired, it has the most cavalry in its armies of any faction in the game!).
• The game lacks tactical depth (the four above points are major contributing reasons).
• War is declared for basically no reason (at least nothing visible to the player), unlike Warband where causes were always given: "we have declared war to reclaim lost territory," "we have declared war to curb the strength of this large faction", etc.
• The game's economy simulation is quite broken-- for example, high-level armor never spawns because all cities are too poor to produce it.
• Castles kind of have no useful function, and just drain your money when you own them. Food supply is such a big issue that it is difficult to garrison your cities and towns because you troops will all starve.
• The new smithing mechanic is unsatisfying and even Armagan has said it needs a rework.
• The Khuzait faction is overpowered due to getting horses for free, and having a very strong cultural bonus that lets their armies move even faster on the world map. The Sturgia faction is underpowered due to having its territory in a very spread out, vulnerable position that is cut in half so it's difficult to move armies across. Battania, which is supposed to be an underdog in the lore, is also overpowered.
• Crime, Rebellion, and Dynastic mechanics, the three main advertised new features, still aren't functional. Out of these, rebellion mechanics and dynastic mechanics have been making slow but noticeable progress at least.

Taleworlds' lack of communication, lack of progress, and lack of planning and organization which is obvious to the whole community at this point, has turned me bitter. Over the last 8 months, we have all watched the game make incredibly slow progress in a period of time where other 100-person studios would have been able to make an entire game. They've actually said they're unable to give us a roadmap of long term goals (only short-term, small-scope stuff) because "it's too difficult to communicate with everyone in different departments", since apparently they have no long term goals and just work on whatever they feel like, when it suits them. A tiny handful of people at the company seem to be doing all the work while other employees focus on important features like letting you go to the barber.

Here is the progress of note the game has made in the last 8 months:

• Performance has made significant improvements but still has notable issues.
• Map balance has improved; some factions used to take over the whole map in a few years, now factions are still imbalanced but no AI faction will take over the whole map in a normal playthrough.
• Lords have been given cheats so that they don't have armies full of recruits all the time anymore.
• Some alright quests were added, such as "sell this merchandise for me" or dedicating a tournament victory to a lady.
• About 10 new armor pieces and a bunch of weapon customization bits have been added, some town scenes have been added.
• Dynastic systems, clan simulation and kingdom management have improved a little bit.
• The single most important addition was modelling and map-making tools for modders to add assets to the game and add new scenes. However, we still don't have all the mod tools.
• Perk tree went from 50% functional to 90% functional. Levelling system got a little bit better.​

In its current state, I would not recommend buying the game. Not just because it's an incomplete and repetitive Early Access, but because at this rate of progress, I am doubting the game will even be as good as Warband by the time it comes out of EA.

Excellent post, I could not agree more.

 

[Antaeus]

I was not a Mount and Blade player. I have no background or cognitive biases based on my experience with that game. So I come with fresh eyes to an early release open beta.

So my expectations are probably different to the above two posts. And my experience differs as a result.

From when I first started playing, knowing that it was released early as a work in progress, I have seen steady improvements to gameplay, performance, and the experience in general. In the beginning, I found performance to be patchy and inconsistent, with memory leaks and glitchy graphics. But since then the game has smoothened out a lot.

I don't feel like armour is weak. After I marry and steal my husband or wife's armour, I feel like a tank on the field. All things being even, I want the ability to kill an enemy lancer in a charge with couched lance. This means I should also be vulnerable to a single hit in this type of situation. Other than that, I can find myself riding about the field with a dozen arrows poking out of me. I have a screenshot of myself saved where I and my horse had 6 javelins embedded down one side between us.

On the other hand, as someone new to M&B, I do struggle with the strategy element of the game. I find it difficult that so many interactions between players and characters have to be person to person - but that this is inconsistent. I hear about a declaration of war instantly when I'm half way across a map, I can appoint someone as a party's surgeon again instantly, but I have to personally travel for days to talk to someone. A "message relay" system would be helpful so that I can assign a companion to a party or do a trade deal with a local notary.

Regarding battles... I'd like to be able to tell specific units to attack specific formations. I've lost count of the times I've seen enemy archers unprotected, and my cavalry have just run off chasing that single horse archer they saw out of the corner of their eyes. The only workaround is to tell your cav to run to a point, hopefully close to the target, then hit the attack. But that nullifies any speed bonus or couched lance.

I don't mind Battanians having a lot of cavalry. Ask Julius Caesar about Gallic cavalry. But they have the most powerful archers in the game, they should be fielding them in the same kind of numbers that their neighbours field crossbows. I feel like Khuzait infantry can be a touch overpowered. I'd like them to be lighter on foot to balance their horse archers.

In summary, I think the game is great to get into now understanding that it is at about 75% finished, and that some things you like now might not work as they do now in the end. I also think it's helpful to balance your expectations. Not everything you like about Warband will make it into the final cut. These decisions have been rationalised by developers, and now tested in game over a year.

 

[five bucks]

I don't feel like armour is weak. After I marry and steal my husband or wife's armour, I feel like a tank on the field.

Well dude you must be playing on 1/3 damage to player then, because your experience differs to that of just about everyone else on this forum. Even the highest-tier armor you can cheat in makes a negligible difference to survivability for the player. In former M&B titles, highest-tier armor would make you take 0-1 damage per hit from the lowest tier units chucking rocks at you or firing weak bows. That felt tank-like, and it is consistent with the way armor works in real life. Whereas in Bannerlord, that same pebble from the weakest enemy in the game will do 9 damage and kill you in just 11 hits! Something that does 16 damage to you naked will do 12 damage to you in highest tier armor. You might as well not be buying and wearing it at all, considering that a single good armor piece can cost as much as a small army. And again, it also means battles end too quick due to troops on both sides lacking survivability.

A "message relay" system would be helpful so that I can assign a companion to a party or do a trade deal with a local notary.

Regarding battles... I'd like to be able to tell specific units to attack specific formations. I've lost count of the times I've seen enemy archers unprotected, and my cavalry have just run off chasing that single horse archer they saw out of the corner of their eyes. The only workaround is to tell your cav to run to a point, hopefully close to the target, then hit the attack. But that nullifies any speed bonus or couched lance.

Agree that more control over companion parties is definitely needed, and being able to attack specific formations too. Not being able to say "cavalry, attack those archers!" feeds into what I was saying about the game lacking tactical depth.

I was not a Mount and Blade player. I have no background or cognitive biases based on my experience with that game. So I come with fresh eyes to an early release open beta.

I can definitely believe that, because if you had, you would be able to see that Warband's game world feels more immersive, replayable and functional than Bannerlord, to the point that a lot of people have even gone back to Warband. It's not like vanilla Warband was some perfect game or anything, but the fact Bannerlord has actually gone backwards from the game it's meant to be an improvement on is just galling.

In summary, I think the game is great to get into now understanding that it is at about 75% finished, and that some things you like now might not work as they do now in the end. I also think it's helpful to balance your expectations. Not everything you like about Warband will make it into the final cut.

We did. I set my expectations as low as possible back in 2014 and I'm still disappointed, along with large parts of the community. It's not like we're complaining that Taleworlds hasn't made the game of our dreams. What Bannerlord is missing is the bare minimum, and I would not call it "great to get into"- I'd call it good for one playthrough before it gets repetitive, due to lacking features. There is only one game company I can think of whose games actually lose features with each sequel, and that's Electronic Arts.
If you are charging $60USD for a new incarnation of a game, it should have all the good features of the last game. That's an absolute basic expectation for a sequel, especially one made by a much larger team over a much longer period of time.
It doesn't help anyone to go around making excuses for Taleworlds. If they get their act together, stop procrastinating and start setting long-term goals, they can easily implement missing Warband features; if a team of 10 people could do it, a team of 100 can.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Well, let me put it this way. I started off enthusiastic. My lowest expectation was that Bannerlord was going to be as good as M&B: Warband, plus with better graphics and better sieges that would make it worth the AAA purchase cost. That seemed like a really easy thing to accomplish for a large team with good funding and government backing.

The graphics are definitely better which is nice. The sieges have more gameplay variety, though they are also buggy. But as for being as good as Warband? Bannerlord is actually missing lots of features from Warband, a game made 10 years ago by a much smaller dev team. The game has gone backwards.

Worse, Taleworlds' official PR people will not even confirm whether these features are returning. To me, that says very worrying things about future development.

If going backwards from the prequel wasn't enough, obviously there are plenty of other major issues which have persisted for a long time.

• Sieges have lots of things wrong with them, for example: troops won't climb up a siege ladder, or won't use siege towers properly, making them pointless to build. Troops often will destroy the first gate to a castle but ignore the second one.
• There is only a very small amount of field battle maps available.
• Performance is very bad during sieges due to AI pathing issues.
• Armor has barely any effect on reducing damage at all, and troops do not defend themselves in battles, so even the largest battles in the game end very quickly, before there are any opportunities to execute tactics. This has the side effect of archers being overpowered.
• Morale doesn't work like they said it would in the developer blog. You can't use it to gain the advantage during battle, only to rout enemies once you've already clearly won.
• Spear-using troop AI, especially for cavalry, doesn't work correctly, making them quite weak. You can't get troops to brace spears in singleplayer (yet, to be fair this is an announced priority of theirs I am fairly confident will make it in).
• The different faction armies all feel quite similar in practice, mostly being able to field the same troops with just minor differences. Only a couple of factions have distinct strengths and weaknesses (for example, Battania can field every type of unit other factions can, and despite being Celtic-inspired, it has the most cavalry in its armies of any faction in the game!).
• The game lacks tactical depth (the four above points are major contributing reasons).
• War is declared for basically no reason (at least nothing visible to the player), unlike Warband where causes were always given: "we have declared war to reclaim lost territory," "we have declared war to curb the strength of this large faction", etc.
• The game's economy simulation is quite broken-- for example, high-level armor never spawns because all cities are too poor to produce it.
• Castles kind of have no useful function, and just drain your money when you own them. Food supply is such a big issue that it is difficult to garrison your cities and towns because you troops will all starve.
• The new smithing mechanic is unsatisfying and even Armagan has said it needs a rework.
• The Khuzait faction is overpowered due to getting horses for free, and having a very strong cultural bonus that lets their armies move even faster on the world map. The Sturgia faction is underpowered due to having its territory in a very spread out, vulnerable position that is cut in half so it's difficult to move armies across. Battania, which is supposed to be an underdog in the lore, is also overpowered.
• Crime, Rebellion, and Dynastic mechanics, the three main advertised new features, still aren't functional. Out of these, rebellion mechanics and dynastic mechanics have been making slow but noticeable progress at least.

Taleworlds' lack of communication, lack of progress, and lack of planning and organization which is obvious to the whole community at this point, has turned me bitter. Over the last 8 months, we have all watched the game make incredibly slow progress in a period of time where other 100-person studios would have been able to make an entire game. They've actually said they're unable to give us a roadmap of long term goals (only short-term, small-scope stuff) because "it's too difficult to communicate with everyone in different departments", since apparently they have no long term goals and just work on whatever they feel like, when it suits them. A tiny handful of people at the company seem to be doing all the work while other employees focus on important features like letting you go to the barber.

Here is the progress of note the game has made in the last 8 months:

• Performance has made significant improvements but still has notable issues.
• Map balance has improved; some factions used to take over the whole map in a few years, now factions are still imbalanced but no AI faction will take over the whole map in a normal playthrough.
• Lords have been given cheats so that they don't have armies full of recruits all the time anymore.
• Some alright quests were added, such as "sell this merchandise for me" or dedicating a tournament victory to a lady.
• About 10 new armor pieces and a bunch of weapon customization bits have been added, some town scenes have been added.
• Dynastic systems, clan simulation and kingdom management have improved a little bit.
• The single most important addition was modelling and map-making tools for modders to add assets to the game and add new scenes. However, we still don't have all the mod tools.
• Perk tree went from 50% functional to 90% functional. Levelling system got a little bit better.​

In its current state, I would not recommend buying the game. Not just because it's an incomplete and repetitive Early Access, but because at this rate of progress, I am doubting the game will even be as good as Warband by the time it comes out of EA.

Well dude you must be playing on 1/3 damage to player then, because your experience differs to that of just about everyone else on this forum. Even the highest-tier armor you can cheat in makes a negligible difference to survivability for the player. In former M&B titles, highest-tier armor would make you take 0-1 damage per hit from the lowest tier units chucking rocks at you or firing weak bows. That felt tank-like, and it is consistent with the way armor works in real life. Whereas in Bannerlord, that same pebble from the weakest enemy in the game will do 9 damage and kill you in just 11 hits! Something that does 16 damage to you naked will do 12 damage to you in highest tier armor. You might as well not be buying and wearing it at all, considering that a single good armor piece can cost as much as a small army. And again, it also means battles end too quick due to troops on both sides lacking survivability.



Agree that more control over companion parties is definitely needed, and being able to attack specific formations too. Not being able to say "cavalry, attack those archers!" feeds into what I was saying about the game lacking tactical depth.


I can definitely believe that, because if you had, you would be able to see that Warband's game world feels more immersive, replayable and functional than Bannerlord, to the point that a lot of people have even gone back to Warband. It's not like vanilla Warband was some perfect game or anything, but the fact Bannerlord has actually gone backwards from the game it's meant to be an improvement on is just galling.

We did. I set my expectations as low as possible back in 2014 and I'm still disappointed, along with large parts of the community. It's not like we're complaining that Taleworlds hasn't made the game of our dreams. What Bannerlord is missing is the bare minimum, and I would not call it "great to get into"- I'd call it good for one playthrough before it gets repetitive, due to lacking features. There is only one game company I can think of whose games actually lose features with each sequel, and that's Electronic Arts.
If you are charging $60USD for a new incarnation of a game, it should have all the good features of the last game. That's an absolute basic expectation for a sequel, especially one made by a much larger team over a much longer period of time.
It doesn't help anyone to go around making excuses for Taleworlds. If they get their act together, stop procrastinating and start setting long-term goals, they can easily implement missing Warband features; if a team of 10 people could do it, a team of 100 can.

+1

I really love reading this kind of direct but calm criticism. I honestly agree with you with the general approach of your argument in broad lines.
Where I would like to make a point, being this a mere informative act and not a white knight Taleworls defender mission; about the " 100" employees. Of those 100 employees, there may be 5 programmers, 5 systems engineers, 5 3d modelers, etc... I mean that the bulk of the company is not part of pure direct action. In those 100 employees we find conceptual artists, graphic designers, testers, administrative staff, PR, community support, etc..

 

[Earth Dragon]

The other thing is that they showing OBVIOUS signs of long term goals, and it just gets ignored.

Skills are being implemented before we get the associated systems that they will influence.

The game can’t run without a functional economy, so we obvious need this running.

More women were added in Auxiliary roles before the Marriage system came about

It was discovered that pathing issues are per map, so they’ve prioritized finishing maps before tackling all the pathing.

More players just need to step away for a patch (or 7) then you actually notice the hefty changes and it’s easier to see the priorities and direction

 

[Revverie]

Well, let me put it this way. I started off enthusiastic. My lowest expectation was that Bannerlord was going to be as good as M&B: Warband, plus with better graphics and better sieges that would make it worth the AAA purchase cost. That seemed like a really easy thing to accomplish for a large team with good funding and government backing.

The graphics are definitely better which is nice. The sieges have more gameplay variety, though they are also buggy. But as for being as good as Warband? Bannerlord is actually missing lots of features from Warband, a game made 10 years ago by a much smaller dev team. The game has gone backwards.

Worse, Taleworlds' official PR people will not even confirm whether these features are returning. To me, that says very worrying things about future development.

If going backwards from the prequel wasn't enough, obviously there are plenty of other major issues which have persisted for a long time.

• Sieges have lots of things wrong with them, for example: troops won't climb up a siege ladder, or won't use siege towers properly, making them pointless to build. Troops often will destroy the first gate to a castle but ignore the second one.
• There is only a very small amount of field battle maps available.
• Performance is very bad during sieges due to AI pathing issues.
• Armor has barely any effect on reducing damage at all, and troops do not defend themselves in battles, so even the largest battles in the game end very quickly, before there are any opportunities to execute tactics. This has the side effect of archers being overpowered.
• Morale doesn't work like they said it would in the developer blog. You can't use it to gain the advantage during battle, only to rout enemies once you've already clearly won.
• Spear-using troop AI, especially for cavalry, doesn't work correctly, making them quite weak. You can't get troops to brace spears in singleplayer (yet, to be fair this is an announced priority of theirs I am fairly confident will make it in).
• The different faction armies all feel quite similar in practice, mostly being able to field the same troops with just minor differences. Only a couple of factions have distinct strengths and weaknesses (for example, Battania can field every type of unit other factions can, and despite being Celtic-inspired, it has the most cavalry in its armies of any faction in the game!).
• The game lacks tactical depth (the four above points are major contributing reasons).
• War is declared for basically no reason (at least nothing visible to the player), unlike Warband where causes were always given: "we have declared war to reclaim lost territory," "we have declared war to curb the strength of this large faction", etc.
• The game's economy simulation is quite broken-- for example, high-level armor never spawns because all cities are too poor to produce it.
• Castles kind of have no useful function, and just drain your money when you own them. Food supply is such a big issue that it is difficult to garrison your cities and towns because you troops will all starve.
• The new smithing mechanic is unsatisfying and even Armagan has said it needs a rework.
• The Khuzait faction is overpowered due to getting horses for free, and having a very strong cultural bonus that lets their armies move even faster on the world map. The Sturgia faction is underpowered due to having its territory in a very spread out, vulnerable position that is cut in half so it's difficult to move armies across. Battania, which is supposed to be an underdog in the lore, is also overpowered.
• Crime, Rebellion, and Dynastic mechanics, the three main advertised new features, still aren't functional. Out of these, rebellion mechanics and dynastic mechanics have been making slow but noticeable progress at least.

Taleworlds' lack of communication, lack of progress, and lack of planning and organization which is obvious to the whole community at this point, has turned me bitter. Over the last 8 months, we have all watched the game make incredibly slow progress in a period of time where other 100-person studios would have been able to make an entire game. They've actually said they're unable to give us a roadmap of long term goals (only short-term, small-scope stuff) because "it's too difficult to communicate with everyone in different departments", since apparently they have no long term goals and just work on whatever they feel like, when it suits them. A tiny handful of people at the company seem to be doing all the work while other employees focus on important features like letting you go to the barber.

Here is the progress of note the game has made in the last 8 months:

• Performance has made significant improvements but still has notable issues.
• Map balance has improved; some factions used to take over the whole map in a few years, now factions are still imbalanced but no AI faction will take over the whole map in a normal playthrough.
• Lords have been given cheats so that they don't have armies full of recruits all the time anymore.
• Some alright quests were added, such as "sell this merchandise for me" or dedicating a tournament victory to a lady.
• About 10 new armor pieces and a bunch of weapon customization bits have been added, some town scenes have been added.
• Dynastic systems, clan simulation and kingdom management have improved a little bit.
• The single most important addition was modelling and map-making tools for modders to add assets to the game and add new scenes. However, we still don't have all the mod tools.
• Perk tree went from 50% functional to 90% functional. Levelling system got a little bit better.​

In its current state, I would not recommend buying the game. Not just because it's an incomplete and repetitive Early Access, but because at this rate of progress, I am doubting the game will even be as good as Warband by the time it comes out of EA.

Best overview of the situation. +1
If you've played MB before, you'll first impression will be good because of the massive graphical improvement, the scenery is quite beautiful too, but after some time you'll suffer an existential crisis

 

[froggyluv]

Where I would like to make a point, being this a mere informative act and not a white knight Taleworls defender mission; about the " 100" employees. Of those 100 employees, there may be 5 programmers, 5 systems engineers, 5 3d modelers, etc... I mean that the bulk of the company is not part of pure direct action. In those 100 employees we find conceptual artists, graphic designers, testers, administrative staff, PR, community support, etc..

Sorry but this is inexcusable for a veteran company on the cusp of a a product expected to earn in the 10's of Millions. I wouldnt accept that excuse from my 10 year old son and his school project -"I didnt know i would need more paper!!"...

If you failed to have the foresight that maybe you are understaffed for critical aspects of your huge project - heres a revolutionary idea for yas -HIRE MORE! You could easily have hired a small crew to write a fully fleshed out Lore backstory with all possible branches of both plot and dialogue, a strategy crew to decide how the politics of the realm will be run dialogue and all for a pretty reasonable price - cost matching game production experience being relative. Seriously why do people feel the need to make excuses for these companies that have intentionally chosen to run on skeleton crews to cut cost (thereby maximizing profit) and make the customer suck it up and wait -"maybe we'll get to it...we are a small company afterall....". Hogwash.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Sorry but this is inexcusable for a veteran company on the cusp of a a product expected to earn in the 10's of Millions. I wouldnt accept that excuse from my 10 year old son and his school project -"I didnt know i would need more paper!!"...

If you failed to have the foresight that maybe you are understaffed for critical aspects of your huge project - heres a revolutionary idea for yas -HIRE MORE! You could easily have hired a small crew to write a fully fleshed out Lore backstory with all possible branches of both plot and dialogue, a strategy crew to decide how the politics of the realm will be run dialogue and all for a pretty reasonable price - cost matching game production experience being relative. Seriously why do people feel the need to make excuses for these companies that have intentionally chosen to run on skeleton crews to cut cost (thereby maximizing profit) and make the customer suck it up and wait -"maybe we'll get to it...we are a small company afterall....". Hogwash.

Well let’s not act like the COVID outbreak can’t impact a tech company at all.
Does anyone have firsthand knowledge on Turkey lockdown procedures or social rules?

 

[MArdA TaleWorlds]

and government backing.

Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have funded the development of the game ourselves using the money we have made from our other titles.

 

[froggyluv]

Well let’s not act like the COVID outbreak can’t impact a tech company at all.
Does anyone have firsthand knowledge on Turkey lockdown procedures or social rules?

Should have had that aspect down well before Coviid. PoP mod we all who were responsible for writing the story and character's backdrops all did so under the leadership of one Woman, Fawzia (rip), yet none of us met personally outside of the low tech chat rooms that existed then. Coviid is not responsible for the utter lack of foresight in that regard but remains an overused excuse to not have gotten it done.

You can literally tell from the language the Devs who are talking to us are using that they are basically winging it - theres no "Dont worry bout it yall we got all this covered its just taking a bit"

 

[FlagsDontLie]

The Game sucks atm it will be good eventually in 3 years

 

[Earth Dragon]

Greetings. An enthusiastic player of Mount and Blade, long time since I've played it. I was wondering how the game is faring with patches, stability etc.

All the videos on YouTube are months old and the tone of it all was pretty negative. I haven't purchased it yet- how you do y'all find it now?

Thanks in advance for your time taken in reply. Best regards, C.

Let’s just break it down:

The game will be labeled as “terrible” by people who have put over a 100 hours into it.

For my part, I’ve never played a “terrible” game for more then a couple hours, so take it for what it is

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Sorry but this is inexcusable for a veteran company on the cusp of a a product expected to earn in the 10's of Millions. I wouldnt accept that excuse from my 10 year old son and his school project -"I didnt know i would need more paper!!"...

If you failed to have the foresight that maybe you are understaffed for critical aspects of your huge project - heres a revolutionary idea for yas -HIRE MORE! You could easily have hired a small crew to write a fully fleshed out Lore backstory with all possible branches of both plot and dialogue, a strategy crew to decide how the politics of the realm will be run dialogue and all for a pretty reasonable price - cost matching game production experience being relative. Seriously why do people feel the need to make excuses for these companies that have intentionally chosen to run on skeleton crews to cut cost (thereby maximizing profit) and make the customer suck it up and wait -"maybe we'll get to it...we are a small company afterall....". Hogwash.

As I said in my previous commentary, I provide a piece of knowledge not as an excuse but as information; the conclusions from that point onwards are for everyone to draw. If you ask me, do you think Taleworlds should have hired more manpower? -I will tell you that unquestionably, yes.

 

[a_ver_est]

Let’s just break it down:

The game will be labeled as “terrible” by people who have put over a 100 hours into it.

For my part, I’ve never played a “terrible” game for more then a couple hours, so take it for what it is

Even more than 100...

IMHO some of the critics are correct, some "must have" features are still missing but on the other side some WB mechanics were bad and tedious so I don't see the point to copy them.

My main concern is the slow developemt progress which make me fear that it will take so long until we have a polished product, improvements are in good direction for sure, but they come from time to time.

 

[archaicwarrior]

I'm enjoying my new campaign. At the Conspiracy stage. I suspect I'll want depth later on.

 

[black_bulldog]

Let’s just break it down:

The game will be labeled as “terrible” by people who have put over a 100 hours into it.

For my part, I’ve never played a “terrible” game for more then a couple hours, so take it for what it is

I'm sorry but at 100 hours in an open world game you've just started to see all the mechanics (or lack of). This isn't some 10 hour game. There are plenty of issues. I'm not going to lie and say I didn't enjoy some of it but I'm also not going to lie and say that some of it was pure frustration. If you want any real depth outside of combat your not going to get it, hopefully we'll get it but it's not there yet and at the pace that TW is going we'll be lucky if we see this come out of ea in less than 2.5 years.

 

[Akka]

If you ask me, do you think Taleworlds should have hired more manpower? -I will tell you that unquestionably, yes.

And I will tell you : no. TW problems are absolutely not about lack of manpower, but about organisation. No Man's Sky was made in less than half the time by a team of TWELVE. World of Warcraft was made in less than half the time by a team of THIRTY. Both are huge games with entirely home-made engines and a ton of content and features.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

And I will tell you : no. TW problems are absolutely not about lack of manpower, but about organisation. No Man's Sky was made in less than half the time by a team of TWELVE. World of Warcraft was made in less than half the time by a team of THIRTY. Both are huge games with entirely home-made engines and a ton of content and features.

It is more likely that Taleworlds will expand the staff, that they will change organizational dynamics organized by who organizes...and you know who organizes here.