Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Old Discussion Thread

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iberian Wolf said:
I can't see how feedback wouldn't be useful in this case.

I am not worried about world features, as they will be moddable. Don't like how diplomacy works? You can play overhaul mods for that. Do you want a different economy? Look at mods.

Vanilla will be a working game that should be fun for at least 50-200 hours. After that you can explore mods that change particular features, or create new worlds (visit medieval Britannia, Game of Thrones, etc) with new gameplay options.
 
kalarhan said:
Iberian Wolf said:
I can't see how feedback wouldn't be useful in this case.

I am not worried about world features, as they will be moddable. Don't like how diplomacy works? You can play overhaul mods for that. Do you want a different economy? Look at mods.

Vanilla will be a working game that should be fun for at least 50-200 hours. After that you can explore mods that change particular features, or create new worlds (visit medieval Britannia, Game of Thrones, etc) with new gameplay options.
We should not think like that, the standart mod should also be something complete, not only fun for "50-200 hours", remember that you have a complete map to conquer, the game must be or should be cativating all the way through. If it was just for mods then modders should make the game instead.

And many mods enriched the game in some ways but forgot other parts.
 
PTWarrior said:
not only fun for "50-200 hours"

50-200 hours of gameplay is not enough for you? Damn  :mrgreen:

It didn't mean you can't enjoy vanilla Bannerlord for 2000 hours if you are inclined to. Just that the game should be complete (as  you said) and fun for that amount, which is plenty when you compare with other games.  If players want more variety (and every one does), that is where mods and DLCs come in. And that can raise the bar for 1000+ hours of gameplay.
 
kalarhan said:
Iberian Wolf said:
I can't see how feedback wouldn't be useful in this case.

I am not worried about world features, as they will be moddable. Don't like how diplomacy works? You can play overhaul mods for that. Do you want a different economy? Look at mods.

We shouldn't need mods to make certain features work better. The game should work almost perfectly day 1. They aren't Bethesda, "fix our games with mods, so we can sell them".
 
Dest45 said:
For me M&B has never been about conquering the map, i hope it supports other playstyles better than Warband

for sure. Lets say they make it a 50 hours campaign (ish) to paint the map (conquer everything), and another 50-100 hours worth of content for other stuff (trading, arena/tournaments, quests, etc). Of course that doesn't mean a player can't replay the "conquer all" more than once, or can't just play a caravan master for 500 hours  :mrgreen:

There is the base content and the sandbox elements. The player chooses how the interact on each campaign and how long that should last, thus creating new and fresh possibilities for each campaign / character.



Plovercrest said:
We shouldn't need mods to make certain features work better.

no we should not, and I did not say that either. I said the game should work and be fun, that implies the features work. Which doesn't mean that you (or any player) will like how each of them works, right? So for you, and you only, playing a overhaul mod for economy may mean the game is better. That never will mean that the base economy was worse or bad in general.

I hate this != this thingy sucks
 
With a heir system, mortal lords with proper replacements, emerging nobility, simulated politics and a map that size, I'm quite sure the planned gaming experience is more or less eternal. 200 hours is a tiny fraction of the overal gameplay, you could go on playing forever, always having a new objective to go after.

50 hours into gameplay and you allready own half of the criminal organizations and a couple of merchant routes in the southern portion of the map. Nice. Why don't you go into the imperial military now?
So, after 100 hours you became a commander. Nice. Go conquer the battanians.
Hey, after 300 hours I'm emperor of the southern empire. What now? Well, time to conquer the northern and western empires and reunify calradia.
Hey, the Empire is now unified, what now? Well, you could build a merchant network to become rich as f*** and enlarge your military.
600 hours and I'm so rich that my dinasty's cash flow is limited by the number of digits on the financial menu. Cool. Train a couple thousant legionairs and go conquer the vlandians... Your empire needs an exit to the sea, doesn't it?
1000 hours and the great great great son of my original character has to get married. Hum, why don't you go into the tournment in Rivacheg to impress the dudes over there and see if you can get to marry the king's daughter? That would be a great alliance. AND SHE'S HOT.
1500 hours and the Red Brotherhood (or something like that) just assassinated one of your military commanders in the northern border. Time to go hunt them down and find out who hired them.


One thing about the entire large game mechanics of Bannerlord is that, in theory, it makes the story and gameplay forever new. There will always be something new to do, even if you conquered every single village and city in the world map. As long as you don't get bored from the core mechanics, there's potential to go on forever with actual new and dynamic quests, no scripted ****.
 
VictorF said:
200 hours is a tiny fraction of the overal gameplay, you could go on playing forever

as I said above that is true for the non average player. Like many open games: strategy like Total War, CK, EU, a sports game (Fifa, F1, ...), and so on, Bannerlord total playtime only depends on the player. But for that normal player that will buy the game, play some SP or MP, and move on to the next thingy, the 50-200 hours is a good standard.

I am currently playing DA:I. I expect it will last about 3 months (~80 hours) to complete the story, as I like to also play sidequests and exploration. I could "finish" the game (main storyline) in ~20hours, or replay the game over and over for 500 hours.

If you look at a website like howlongtobeat, you can see Warband is listed as ~60 hours (main), 110 hours (with extras), and ~220 (for hardcore fans).
https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=6240
 
I came late to the game (end of 2015) but I can honestly say MB is one of the few games I keep coming back to LONG after I tired of Vanilla (I easily have 5x more playing time with the mods than vanilla and look forward to what awesomeness the MOD community will do for BL when I tire of vanilla BL.

Best "bang for the buck" (think it was like 12.99 or something on STEAM back then) computer game I've ever gotten.....
 
kalarhan said:
Iberian Wolf said:
I can't see how feedback wouldn't be useful in this case.

I am not worried about world features, as they will be moddable. Don't like how diplomacy works? You can play overhaul mods for that. Do you want a different economy? Look at mods.

Vanilla will be a working game that should be fun for at least 50-200 hours. After that you can explore mods that change particular features, or create new worlds (visit medieval Britannia, Game of Thrones, etc) with new gameplay options.

I  agree with you, and I swear I almost never play vanilla versions if I see there's a decent mod around. Even if it's my first time playing the game! Warband, Skyrim,Darkest Dungeon,M2TW, you name it.

But I don't think everything will be so easily moddable, although I'm hoping it will. Sure, stuff like numbers,tweaks etc should be a no brainer, but for instance...

Say they would tell us how the perk system works, way before release. By giving feedback, we'd have at least a chance to suggest perks that simply did not occur to developers. Then they would think about the ones they considered a good idea and add them.

Let's say something like "Night Raider" : Troops under the command of a character with this perk get a bonus to their morale during combat between late evening and dawn.

Now, trying to add this perk with a mod may or may not be possible; might be hardcoded, who knows!





 
kalarhan said:
PTWarrior said:
not only fun for "50-200 hours"

50-200 hours of gameplay is not enough for you? Damn  :mrgreen:

It didn't mean you can't enjoy vanilla Bannerlord for 2000 hours if you are inclined to. Just that the game should be complete (as  you said) and fun for that amount, which is plenty when you compare with other games.  If players want more variety (and every one does), that is where mods and DLCs come in. And that can raise the bar for 1000+ hours of gameplay.
Currently with all the studies I have that's more than enough  :lol:

Yes, more variety comes with mods but with all the mods I played they had new features, new fun, new maps, new stuff, better diplomacy, economy, quests, etc., but despite all that they seemed less complete in some parts than Native to me. Because there were things that were incomplete, there were missing parts or were not finished, maps and buildings were not that good, or they were mods that embraced soo many aspects and features that it got confuse and some features didn't work as they should. Overall the mods to fully work needed some polishing (wich is fully acceptable, they do it for free). Many times I would go back to Native, maybe with diplomacy or something or not even that, even though Native is very incomplete, because mods (that were awesome mods) did not completely satisfy me. But then again, Native was also not so satisfying after many time playing, it would get repetitive.

So the standart mod should be complete and satisfying to some acceptable level and still have many room for mods (being mods one of the strong aspects of the game) so that playing Native or playing mods would always be satisfying after the "50-200 hours" of gameplay. That's my opinion.
 
PTWarrior said:
So the standart mod should be complete and satisfying to some acceptable level

and there you go. Game will never be perfect, but it needs to be fun and mostly bug free. Anyone that expects more than that is kidding themselves  :mrgreen:

alternative gamemodes / features / balance / etc can be added by mods / DLC to create more diversity later. And with those tools a player can try to create his own version of a perfect game (or as close to it as he can manage it).
 
Why is no journalist asking a release WINDOW instead of a release date ? Obviously they can't be precise, but they should be able to tell if it's more like 2 month or more like a year
 
Kehlian said:
Why is no journalist asking a release WINDOW instead of a release date ? Obviously they can't be precise, but they should be able to tell if it's more like 2 month or more like a year

because the question implies a window, noone's gonna say September 1, 2017, but rather late Q3 2017.
 
I would like to see more consequences for using a specific army. For example an all cavalry army would use a lot more food, as you have both men and horses. A huge army would lose moral when in the field for too long etc. And I would like to see miscellaneous items become useful in the army, like bundles of fur can reduce effects of winter (hopefully seasons will affect parties).
 
:lol:
cf7zYO3.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom