In the new year TaleWorlds should put out a revised update about their plans and timings for the game

[Fate]

I do, but I also played sieges in Warband. Which were a 1000 times worse. In the meantime I hope that Bannerlord sieges get some improvements in the next 6 months.

First, people are happy. Reviews on Steam are incredibly good, even better than my own view of the game.

A game 10 years old had worse sieges? Not sure if that's the benchmark to use.

Steam reviews mean nearly nothing. People leave a review before getting really into the game then never edit it. Also the average review score on steam is 84% positive which shows the platform skews high. The forums show the communities perception of the game much better

 

[babelfisch]

A game 10 years old had worse sieges? Not sure if that's the benchmark to use.

It is, when people claim that Warband was way better than Bannerlord.

Steam reviews mean nearly nothing. People leave a review before getting really into the game then never edit it. Also the average review score on steam is 84% positive which shows the platform skews high. The forums show the communities perception of the game much better

Steam reviews mean as much as a bunch of entitled nerds ranting in a negative echo chamber.

 

[Fate]

It is, when people claim that Warband was way better than Bannerlord.


Steam reviews mean as much as a bunch of entitled nerds ranting in a negative echo chamber.

Never said that and the comment made was "at least its seiges are better than warband was". In that discussion no one was saying warband is better.

You're calling others nerds? Lol bro you have almost 500 messages and 5 days of live time on this "negative echo chamber"

 

[babelfisch]

Never said that and the comment made was "at least its seiges are better than warband was". In that discussion no one was saying warband is better.

The quote I quoted was about Warband, so I'd say it's fair to mention that sieges weren't better in Warband.

You're calling others nerds? Lol bro you have almost 500 messages and 5 days of live time on this "negative echo chamber"

Never said I am not a part of this nerd show. It's just your claim that 120000 steam reviews are worth less than the opinion of a handful of forum nerds.

 

[Fate]

The quote I quoted was about Warband, so I'd say it's fair to mention that sieges weren't better in Warband.

Never said I am not a part of this nerd show. It's just your claim that 120000 steam reviews are worth less than the opinion of a handful of forum nerds.

Alright well I apologize for even bringing it up, that was wrong of me

I'm not saying the game is bad by any means, I think just a lot of people (myself included) are disappointed with the status of the game/progress that's being made and it seems the developers simply don't care.

We can agree to disagree, but I do wish you the best

 

[Cabell]

So the community really should be updated with new and revised plans for 2021 from TW.

Right?

I understand your frustration and have often shared it, but I'd rather they just keep working and not take the time to make a public-friendly release schedule which (I imagine) is more complicated than @Callum cranking out a forum post in 20 minutes. I have a backlog of other games to play a mile high anyway so I've been content to pop back in on Bannerlord with each patch and hotfix.

Also, given the kind of cynicism in the forums right now - which kind of just seems to be the direction computer gaming fandom is headed anyway - I can't really imagine what they could possibly say that wouldn't just piss off large chunks of "the community." A big mea culpa that they promised too much and are narrowing their focus to things they know they can get done by March? People will be foaming at the mouth accusing them of fraud and pasting Wikipedia article excerpts from the Uniform Commercial Code to support that. They say they're on track to deliver what they originally said would come out in March? People will call them liars. Some announcement in between these two extremes saying they will spend more time in EA and will deliver less than what they originally promised? We'll just see a mix of people calling them liars and frauds, and that does nothing but lower their morale.

Sure, not everyone on the forums will grab the digital equivalents of torches and pitchforks, but the loudest always get the most attention and the TW employees most active on the forums spending almost as much time responding to attacks and demands as they do suggestions and bug reports.

 

[Andrei[beast]]

the basic Warband features like chosing your character background

You sure about this one?

Here you go here is a feast like in warband: call an army with all your lords go to a town enter the lords hall and there you go its literally the same

*besieging Rivacheg*
"king Harlaus invites you to a few at his new fief, Jelkala"

 

[Fate]

I understand your frustration and have often shared it, but I'd rather they just keep working and not take the time to make a public-friendly release schedule which (I imagine) is more complicated than @Callum cranking out a forum post in 20 minutes. I have a backlog of other games to play a mile high anyway so I've been content to pop back in on Bannerlord with each patch and hotfix.

Also, given the kind of cynicism in the forums right now - which kind of just seems to be the direction computer gaming fandom is headed anyway - I can't really imagine what they could possibly say that wouldn't just piss off large chunks of "the community." A big mea culpa that they promised too much and are narrowing their focus to things they know they can get done by March? People will be foaming at the mouth accusing them of fraud and pasting Wikipedia article excerpts from the Uniform Commercial Code to support that. They say they're on track to deliver what they originally said would come out in March? People will call them liars. Some announcement in between these two extremes saying they will spend more time in EA and will deliver less than what they originally promised? We'll just see a mix of people calling them liars and frauds, and that does nothing but lower their morale.

Sure, not everyone on the forums will grab the digital equivalents of torches and pitchforks, but the loudest always get the most attention and the TW employees most active on the forums spending almost as much time responding to attacks and demands as they do suggestions and bug reports.

I understand what you're saying, but the issue is they are wrong here. They are extremely under delivering and instead of owning up to it and coming up with/sharing a plan, they are hiding and avoiding. That only leads to more and more people becoming frustrated and joining in the negative outlook. They could help fix this without even publishing a patch by being transparent and organized.They made an insane amount of money off of us and now don't think we deserve an explanation or a roadmap

 

[AndrewArt]

Not much of a chance anyone buys DLC from a company like this if they actually did that. Mods would just be the sole method of finishing/extending the game. They would just be flooded with negative reviews for even offering DLC without going above and beyond at this point

DLCs are fine, as long as they give a decent base game with some balance, some good progression, and at least a little more content than this (with proper early game, mid game, and end game activities). Then they can add DLCs with a whole other world/factions, or some in-depth naval system, who knows. Devs need to be paid for their work, so I wouldn't mind some good quality DLCs. Just give a good base game first.

 

[Bloc]

It is, when people claim that Warband was way better than Bannerlord.

Warband Sieges are better than Bannerlord. At least they are playable. Lack of siege engines and weird-ass stairs? Yes. But game designed in that way and AI/bots are working according to that.
Bannerlord? Just clusterf.. Huge mess. Not even talking about the performance issues that arise when you start the siege.

I agree, I will eat crow if I am wrong.

I have seen this comment multiple times from you. Come on now, you can admit, you are into eating crow - you wanna know how that tastes, right?

 

[stevehoos]

Warband Sieges are better than Bannerlord. At least they are playable. Lack of siege engines and weird-ass stairs? Yes. But game designed in that way and AI/bots are working according to that.
Bannerlord? Just clusterf.. Huge mess. Not even talking about the performance issues that arise when you start the siege.


I have seen this comment multiple times from you. Come on now, you can admit, you are into eating crow - you wanna know how that tastes, right?

It's my favorite meal, just need TW to provide the sides.

 

[Fate]

DLCs are fine, as long as they give a decent base game with some balance, some good progression, and at least a little more content than this (with proper early game, mid game, and end game activities). Then they can add DLCs with a whole other world/factions, or some in-depth naval system, who knows. Devs need to be paid for their work, so I wouldn't mind some good quality DLCs. Just give a good base game first.

Oh I 100% agree devs need to be paid for their work. I'm a developer and generally always champion gaming companies having further income opportunities (not outright cash grabs) to keep a game alive and growing. The issue arises when a company accepts payment upfront (early access) then consistently fails at delivering. Made 10000% worse when they do not care enough to communicate properly with their customers.

If they can first turn the game around (and add a good amount more than a "little" more content) I'm all for DLC in the future and would gladly buy it. My response was to a comment saying they would only do a little bit more (mostly QOL) then "release" it and soon after start releasing paid DLC.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

The only answer we will allways get, is soon and soon is all we'll ever need to know.

 

[babelfisch]

Alright well I apologize for even bringing it up, that was wrong of me

No reason to apologise. I enjoy arguments way too much, sometimes I just like to disagree and discuss things.

I'm not saying the game is bad by any means, I think just a lot of people (myself included) are disappointed with the status of the game/progress that's being made and it seems the developers simply don't care.

I actually believe that TW are kind of incompetent, it doesn't seem like they are very professional. On the other hand, if they would be more professional, they probably wouldn't develop a niche game like M&B but make the next stupid battle royal / lootbox / CoD / whatever clone. That's pretty much what most of the other studios do, and in my opinion that sucks more than slow progress. I think they really do care and they are doing their best, but their output is very limited because of missing structures and professionalism. And as said above, that's not necessarily a bad thing. A more professional developer would turn the game into ****. The global pandemic and home office doesn't help either. Constructive criticism can only be good for the game, and I am pretty sure that some very dedicated people in the community are even more knowledgeable than the devs about certain topics.

We can agree to disagree, but I do wish you the best

You seem to be a decent chap, I respect people who can have a good argument without taking it personally.

I understand your frustration and have often shared it, but I'd rather they just keep working and not take the time to make a public-friendly release schedule which (I imagine) is more complicated than @Callum cranking out a forum post in 20 minutes. I have a backlog of other games to play a mile high anyway so I've been content to pop back in on Bannerlord with each patch and hotfix.

Also, given the kind of cynicism in the forums right now - which kind of just seems to be the direction computer gaming fandom is headed anyway - I can't really imagine what they could possibly say that wouldn't just piss off large chunks of "the community." A big mea culpa that they promised too much and are narrowing their focus to things they know they can get done by March? People will be foaming at the mouth accusing them of fraud and pasting Wikipedia article excerpts from the Uniform Commercial Code to support that. They say they're on track to deliver what they originally said would come out in March? People will call them liars. Some announcement in between these two extremes saying they will spend more time in EA and will deliver less than what they originally promised? We'll just see a mix of people calling them liars and frauds, and that does nothing but lower their morale.

Sure, not everyone on the forums will grab the digital equivalents of torches and pitchforks, but the loudest always get the most attention and the TW employees most active on the forums spending almost as much time responding to attacks and demands as they do suggestions and bug reports.

That sounds pretty reasonable in my opinion.

Warband Sieges are better than Bannerlord. At least they are playable. Lack of siege engines and weird-ass stairs? Yes. But game designed in that way and AI/bots are working according to that.
Bannerlord? Just clusterf.. Huge mess. Not even talking about the performance issues that arise when you start the siege.

I refuse to accept that anything is worse than sieges in Warband. Bannerlord is very far from being acceptable but Warband didn't even have the potential to be acceptable. It was literally the worst feature of the entire game in my opinion.

 

[Mad Vader]

I have a backlog of other games to play a mile high anyway

Welcome to the mile high club?

I refuse to accept that anything is worse than sieges in Warband. Bannerlord is very far from being acceptable but Warband didn't even have the potential to be acceptable. It was literally the worst feature of the entire game in my opinion.

Warband sieges were unpolished brutal battles that still required skill. This made them acceptable.
The worst feature in the game was actually the puny tactical AI in open battles. This is apparently fixed in Bannerlord by making the battles too short for tactics to matter. Now that's progress.

 

[sniparsexe]

Warband sieges were unpolished brutal battles that still required skill

what skill did they require? After playing the game for 6-7 hours you could take a castle easily, even on the hardest settings

source: I did

 

[Andrei[beast]]

On the other hand, if they would be more professional, they probably wouldn't develop a niche game like M&B but make the next stupid battle royal / lootbox / CoD / whatever clone. That's pretty much what most of the other studios do, and in my opinion that sucks more than slow progress. I think they really do care and they are doing their best, but their output is very limited because of missing structures and professionalism. And as said above, that's not necessarily a bad thing. A more professional developer would turn the game into ****. The global pandemic and home office doesn't help either. Constructive criticism can only be good for the game, and I am pretty sure that some very dedicated people in the community are even more knowledgeable than the devs about certain topics.

This.. just so much. The fact that TW made something unique that still fits their style is what defines them. Sure, there are different games out there that explore some similar things but they don't have the specific Mount and Blade feel to them. The fact that drags them down from a great company is the slow development and lack of communication, which isn't new. But as you said, i'd like for them to take their time and deliver what they are foreseeing for this game rather than stick to money-making genres that exists these days.

 

[Andrei[beast]]

what skill did they require? After playing the game for 6-7 hours you could take a castle easily, even on the hardest settings

source: I did

Exactly xD. The warband sieges seemed too easy once you have a decent equipment but at some time with some huscarls and knights in a band of 80-100 i took castles and cities of 300 men and more. In BL things are different, for me at least, as now i can't just 1v1 20 enemies without dying or them being distracted.

 

[mfuegemann]

I do think, we will receive a finished product in march. Maybe it will be considered finished only from TW's point of view, though.
I will buy no DLC at all and no future game, until it has been on the marked for more than a year.
I am learning at a slow pace, but I am learning still.
Thank You for that lesson, TW.

And as a side remark. Warband sieges had their flaws but they were not as repetitive and bugged as Bannerlord's. We now have better visuals with so much wasted potential, that it is hard not to cry in frustration.

 

[babelfisch]

Warband sieges were unpolished brutal battles that still required skill. This made them acceptable.
The worst feature in the game was actually the puny tactical AI in open battles. This is apparently fixed in Bannerlord by making the battles too short for tactics to matter. Now that's progress.

Warband sieges didn't require any skill at all. It was just a giant mess. I used ranged weapons until we got a spot on the walls. After that I stabbed everyone in the back. I singlehandedly killed 200 soldiers that way, don't tell me skill was involved. It isn't much better in Bannerlord though.