Yep, and even then warband was a pretty definitive, complex game for it's time. It just sucks to see corporate leads ruin creative works in the way that they do.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Mexxico, I'd value and appreciate your opinion on implementing Casus Belli in Bannerlord
- 主题发起人 stevepine
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
Yep, they have trashed this game. It's so empty.
If there is one thing I can say I totally hate about Bannerlord, this is it. -snip- whoever decided that clans should all have the same color as the kingdom and mercenaries that join a kingdom would forgo their visual identity to fit a color pattern.
I can't go anywhere near Aserai because of that awful color scheme. I love their cultural theme, but their colors are so ****ed up that I just can't.
由板主最后编辑:
I can't understand the logic when some feature is a clear downgrade from Warband.
由板主最后编辑:
Dreed89
Squire
Actually, I think that managers at TW too would love to see these suggested changes, however, the thing is, the company is not on par with big companies out there, both resource and technical capability wise.
It is simply not feasible to add stuff to the game in terms of engineering. Probably the code is mess.
In the end, they aim get away with laziest and simplest features: features that are not in connected with each other or with the living world, such as smithing, prison escape, castle battles.
Not saying these are not valuable, I am just trying to exemplify a fact.
It is simply not feasible to add stuff to the game in terms of engineering. Probably the code is mess.
In the end, they aim get away with laziest and simplest features: features that are not in connected with each other or with the living world, such as smithing, prison escape, castle battles.
Not saying these are not valuable, I am just trying to exemplify a fact.
I think depth and complexity are two different things that are perhaps being melded together in the devs eyes.
Here is an excerpt from an article that describes what I mean by this:
Depth is “the number of emergent, experientially different possibilities or meaningful choices that come out of one ruleset.” Games with high depth are still strategically interesting and fun even after you have mastered the game’s rules.
Complexity is how difficult it is for the player to understand the rules and their implications. If the game requires the player to track multiple rules at once, it makes it harder for the player to appreciate the depth of the game.
Source
The players don't necessarily want overly complicated systems, we want more depth, that's why we request features that add to immersion and that make the world feel more dynamic and that player choices and actions have an impact within that world. Depth is a good thing and we need features that add to this depth, rather than simplifying everything to the point that you have a bare bones and shallow game that rely on mods to add this depth. The average gamer absolutely loves depth in videogames and even an element of complexity mixed in, to give you an example of a complex game with a lot of depth that is one of the most popular games of all time that regularly pulls in millions of dollars in revenue every single year: DotA 2(100+ heroes with different abilities, hundreds of items with unique abilities), or even League of Legends for that matter are both very complex games with a great amount of depth and are STILL insanely popular after over a decade. The argument that the average player isn't interested in complexity or depth is simply false and rather insulting and belittling to assume.
Here is an excerpt from an article that describes what I mean by this:
Depth is “the number of emergent, experientially different possibilities or meaningful choices that come out of one ruleset.” Games with high depth are still strategically interesting and fun even after you have mastered the game’s rules.
Complexity is how difficult it is for the player to understand the rules and their implications. If the game requires the player to track multiple rules at once, it makes it harder for the player to appreciate the depth of the game.
Source
The players don't necessarily want overly complicated systems, we want more depth, that's why we request features that add to immersion and that make the world feel more dynamic and that player choices and actions have an impact within that world. Depth is a good thing and we need features that add to this depth, rather than simplifying everything to the point that you have a bare bones and shallow game that rely on mods to add this depth. The average gamer absolutely loves depth in videogames and even an element of complexity mixed in, to give you an example of a complex game with a lot of depth that is one of the most popular games of all time that regularly pulls in millions of dollars in revenue every single year: DotA 2(100+ heroes with different abilities, hundreds of items with unique abilities), or even League of Legends for that matter are both very complex games with a great amount of depth and are STILL insanely popular after over a decade. The argument that the average player isn't interested in complexity or depth is simply false and rather insulting and belittling to assume.
To quote my favorite MP dev when the community requested to be able to manually cycle between an Ai units weapon type (A reasonable request considering nearly all units carry multiple weapons on them.):
How is adding an option for people to switch weapons for their ai too complicated?? That's just downright insulting. It's not rocket science, If my men have swords and spears both and I want them to use one over the other, I would simply press 1 button (let's say F 8 and it would cycle from that units primary weapon to it's secondary weapon. That's not too complex for players even your average joe can figure that out, and if he doesn't want to he doesn't have to use it, it would be an OPTION for players who want more control to have. The ai isn't smart enough to know when it is strategically viable to use a certain weapon, and this limits player choice and overall impact on the battlefield. I may as well just put my men on charge and eat popcorn at this rate, is that what we are striving for?
Stuff like this man... Frustrates me.
How is adding an option for people to switch weapons for their ai too complicated?? That's just downright insulting. It's not rocket science, If my men have swords and spears both and I want them to use one over the other, I would simply press 1 button (let's say F 8 and it would cycle from that units primary weapon to it's secondary weapon. That's not too complex for players even your average joe can figure that out, and if he doesn't want to he doesn't have to use it, it would be an OPTION for players who want more control to have. The ai isn't smart enough to know when it is strategically viable to use a certain weapon, and this limits player choice and overall impact on the battlefield. I may as well just put my men on charge and eat popcorn at this rate, is that what we are striving for?
Stuff like this man... Frustrates me.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Let’s see, stop talking like if TW would be a company making games every 2 years without any complexity just to get money. Bannerlord has been under development during a lot of years, what do you think that would happen if they would add complexity to everything? You could argue that they are too slow or whatever you want to say but the truth is that there is no games similar to mount & blade, this game is unique a pretty complex compared to other tittles where AI just gets massive cheats and it is almost non existent.
The death&aging feature is actually a pretty complex system, AI lords now play under similar player rules while they cheat a lot in Warband. You can argue that you would prefer more immersion rather than the AI playing with similar player rules but I disagree with “TW have made the game simpler for console” statement.
Maybe I am wrong but this game will get more immersive at some point, for the moment I am much more interested on seeing core features working and AI getting improved.
Concerning causes belli system would be great but if not possible, please just make the AI less likely to declare new wars when they are already fighting and losing one.
The death&aging feature is actually a pretty complex system, AI lords now play under similar player rules while they cheat a lot in Warband. You can argue that you would prefer more immersion rather than the AI playing with similar player rules but I disagree with “TW have made the game simpler for console” statement.
Maybe I am wrong but this game will get more immersive at some point, for the moment I am much more interested on seeing core features working and AI getting improved.
Concerning causes belli system would be great but if not possible, please just make the AI less likely to declare new wars when they are already fighting and losing one.
Yeah, but it was bugged in native and never patched, so there were certain types of wars that wouldn't (almost couldn't) ever end.
Absolutely, even more frustating considering warband had this feature and i never saw a single soul complaining about it since one of the most famous and must have mods was exactly the formations and improved combat ai one.
I've resorted to a gamming solution on my end, modified every troop tree so the soldiers will only carry one main weapon + a optional throwing one or shield depending on tier and role, for example if the troop name is spearmen they will only have spears as a main weapon to ensure they use it and fill a role.
The game is a bit more total-war like but atleast every troop has a clear function now and you don't need to relly on the ai knowing the right weapon to use at the right time (spoilers they don't know and only get confused and trash your battle lines trying to guess)
Sorry to ask you this, Idk if this part of your role and responsibilities.
But, what about the Diplomacies? What are we going get?
Alliances? Trades agreements? Non agression pact?
Thanks in advance
Happy New year
The truth is with a positive review score of 87% on Steam, and already having sold the game to a huge amount of their potential audience. There's just no incentive for the leadership team to heavily invenst further in the development of Bannerlord. It's not like with No man's sky where they faced a huge backlash and a lot of negative reviews and refunds. The people complaining in this forum is just a loud minority for them, and they brush it off with "You can never make everyone happy etc."
If some of you have worked in large companies you've most likely experienced very similar events.
If some of you have worked in large companies you've most likely experienced very similar events.
Julio-Claudian
Sergeant Knight
It's so heart breaking how the studios who make the strategy games with the most potential limit themselves for fear of making them too complex. Trying to appeal to people who aren't really that interested in strategy games. Still, I'm glad that Taleworlds at least seems to want to keep the game as modifiable as possible, unlike CA.
I gave the game a poor rating on steam. I decided to only play again when/if something interesting is added so as to improve immersion. I know TW is a small studio. But what angers me is that they had such a long time to actually do something interesting and instead gave us a game that is, plain and simply, bland. I thank developers like Mexxico who seem to be trying hard to transform the game.
Beg to differ here - they are starting to act EXACTLY like the big companies -that being shedding themselves of creativity and deeply thought out gameworld mechanics in favor of just particle effects and graphical upgrades. Its generally the smaller companies and modders who are willing to delve deep into things like lore, backround and fleshed out story/sandbox driven mechanics
There is still not a single other game out there which even comes close to the gameplay of the M&B series. Somehow nobody else wants to do it. And since Bannerlord is pretty much a direct upgrade to Warband (it's better in almost every aspect, minus a handful of minor features still missing) I'd say it certainly goes in the right direction. I understand that some people want it to be something else or would prefer it if it's more like some mod they personally enjoyed for Warband. Well I am just glad it isn't. I've seen plenty of mods with very questionable design decisions and I'd rather get a solid foundation and pick the mechanics I like via modding.
Bro your preaching to the choir -ive been in more arguments here defending the CORE COMBAT MECHANIC as well as the successfully merging it into large battles and a strategty/rpg game all at once. I GET IT!
My point has always been (whether you label me white knight or hater) that the intial game M&B and its core mechanics are genius and without competitor nor peer. That said -how long you gonna coast on that without fleshing out the other aspects of the game allongside that longtime awesome mechanic. Not only have the other aspects gone stagnant -they've regressed to worse than they used to be.
I've pretty much always defended the DEVS against mindless attacks -people who dont have the capability or wherewithall to give props to the core greatness of the series -but all the other aspects are fair game to criticism. All the more so after hearing that this isnt simply a matter of them (devs) needing more time to develop these neglected areas -now its sounding like its all been voted down at corporate and there are no plans to address these seemingly huge lapses. This is a huge cause for concern and the people are right to question at this point
类似的主题
