My concerns about the approach of TW to feature additions and their prioritisations

Currently viewing this thread:

Dreed89

Sergeant
This game needs improvements on its core gameplay instead of focusing on unrelated feature additions.

If the core of the game is not fixed, the game will keep feeling shallow and robotic even if it receives numerous feature updates.

To be specific, let me give some examples. Even though the below features are valuable, the game will not be complete without its core fixed.

Individual feature examples that will not fix the game only by themselves:
  • Smithing (already exists)
  • Feasts
  • Grand tournaments
  • Ships
  • ... so on
Core feature examples that when added will fix the game gradually by increasing its depth:
  • Clans and marriage (already exists)
  • Rebellions (already exists)
  • New terrain system (is being implemented)
  • Campaign map city and keep models resembling their scenes
  • Different scenes
  • Scene interactions, a reason to visit scenes
  • Better combat and siege AI
  • Different combat tactics for lords
  • Better NPC dialogue with caravan leaders, villagers, village elders, town notables, gang leaders, etc.
  • Distinct lord dialogue based on their traits and characteristics, and also based on their history with the player
  • Factions feeling different instead of being copy-paste of each other in terms of strategy
  • Really different characteristics and dialogue for rulers
  • ... so on

Looking forward to hear your opinions. When replying, please keep in mind that I am not saying individual features exemplified above are unnecessary. I am only trying to, by making a comparison, emphasize the importance of the core of the game that TW mostly seems to have ignored so far and, I am afraid, we will not have the game we all wait for if these parts are left untouched.

Edit: Also found a well-written recent reddit post on the same topic

 
Last edited:

stevepine

Sergeant at Arms
Yup, completely agreed. I think probably most people here will agree too.... well maybe...

(Although I won't hold my breath on that one)
 
Last edited:

qwerrecd42

Recruit
When I came back after 10 months and saw that the NPCs were all still soulless husks with no personality I pretty much lost hope that this would actually be an improvement over Warband in any way but graphics.
 

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
When I came back after 10 months and saw that the NPCs were all still soulless husks with no personality I pretty much lost hope that this would actually be an improvement over Warband in any way but graphics.
I have more fun playing the multiplayer of a 10+ year game long past it's golden age than playing the multiplayer of it's sequel released less than a year ago, that's saying something about the directions they went with bannerlord.
 
When I came back after 10 months and saw that the NPCs were all still soulless husks with no personality I pretty much lost hope that this would actually be an improvement over Warband in any way but graphics.

Yep, it's really not much of an improvement aside from graphics and animations.
 

fanugi

Sergeant
These are all great ideas for sure. I have seen so many great ideas to add depth to this game over the last year. I have not seen TW talk about implementing any of them at any point. I think they are going to let the modders take care of that. But I don't know maybe TW has an Ace up their sleeve. I think they are just going to leave it as a battle simulator for awhile though, getting boring.
 
I think it is an improvement over the base-game of Warband. It's unfair to compare modded features since Warband has had so many years with its modding community while Bannerlord? Roughly a year?

Features/Ideas I find that are interesting and keep me around playing Bannerlord

. Life and death, dynasty system.
.Better sieges - anything is better than vanilla Warband sieges. You can build siege engines
. Rebellions
. Quality of life features, for example, seeing the number of troops an opposing kingdom has. An entire encyclopedia that is more intuitive than the tabs in warband. More information. There are many more I don't want to list here
. Larger battles and decent graphics for the number of troops on the screen
. More development options
. Smithing (even doe its broken)
. Army system - much better than just random lords running close together like in Warband.
. Worldmap is larger and more expansive it seems
. Better battle scenes. Warband had auto-generated terrain which was good and bad. Sometimes you would get very ****ty battlefields to fight in
. Better battle command is spilt between lords. So you can control the archer formations while another lord takes command of infantry
. New recruitment system
. Upcoming terrain system
. Upcoming keep battles
. Morale is actually more present. Routs are more common which is realistic
. The greater modding potential down the line
. And much more I don't want to sit here writing this out for an hour

I like Warband and Bannerlord. I think it's unfair to compare both games but yet people do it and just ignore all quality of life features that Bannerlord offers. The reason why everyone and myself likes Warband so much are because of the multiplayer/singeplayer mods which have been developed for years.

Bannerlord is definitively is flawed like vanilla Warband and obviously needs criticism. But bashing it nonsensically seems kinda unfair in my eyes.
 

Dreed89

Sergeant
NPCs were all still soulless husks with no personality
Good description, made me laugh. :smile:

I like Warband and Bannerlord. I think it's unfair to compare both games but yet people do it and just ignore all quality of life features that Bannerlord offers. The reason why everyone and myself likes Warband so much are because of the multiplayer/singeplayer
Of course all the features you have posted are great improvements. Apart from graphics, Bannlerlord has a lot of quality improvements such as army system, encyclopedia, easier inventory and companion navigation menus, etc.

But do those features help a player too feel the immension only by themselves? I don' think so.

Yes, the two games should not be compared as BL is still not released, but I wanted to point out that nearly a year has passed and there has not been much improvement or any word about future plans from a TW employee on these core areas. This post aims to maybe get the attention of TW and if they think these areas are fine, show by example that they are not.
 

qwerrecd42

Recruit
I think it is an improvement over the base-game of Warband. It's unfair to compare modded features since Warband has had so many years with its modding community while Bannerlord? Roughly a year?

Features/Ideas I find that are interesting and keep me around playing Bannerlord

. Life and death, dynasty system.
.Better sieges - anything is better than vanilla Warband sieges. You can build siege engines
. Rebellions
. Quality of life features, for example, seeing the number of troops an opposing kingdom has. An entire encyclopedia that is more intuitive than the tabs in warband. More information. There are many more I don't want to list here
. Larger battles and decent graphics for the number of troops on the screen
. More development options
. Smithing (even doe its broken)
. Army system - much better than just random lords running close together like in Warband.
. Worldmap is larger and more expansive it seems
. Better battle scenes. Warband had auto-generated terrain which was good and bad. Sometimes you would get very ****ty battlefields to fight in
. Better battle command is spilt between lords. So you can control the archer formations while another lord takes command of infantry
. New recruitment system
. Upcoming terrain system
. Upcoming keep battles
. Morale is actually more present. Routs are more common which is realistic
. The greater modding potential down the line
. And much more I don't want to sit here writing this out for an hour

I like Warband and Bannerlord. I think it's unfair to compare both games but yet people do it and just ignore all quality of life features that Bannerlord offers. The reason why everyone and myself likes Warband so much are because of the multiplayer/singeplayer mods which have been developed for years.

Bannerlord is definitively is flawed like vanilla Warband and obviously needs criticism. But bashing it nonsensically seems kinda unfair in my eyes.
A couple problems here:

1. Probably a third of the stuff you're listing is "upcoming" which means it A. isn't in the game at the moment and B. could enter the game at any possible level of quality (from "working flawlessly" to "save-corrupting bugs"). It's unfair to Warband to include stuff that isn't actually in Bannerlord.
2. Another large chunk of stuff you're talking about is broken, as you say. It seems like a big assumption to just take it for granted that they'll be fixed any time soon, especially since as far as I can tell none of the stuff you're talking about has been mentioned by devs.
3. QOL. For every QOL addition to Bannerlord, there's one they still don't have from Warband. In my personal experience, I miss the stuff from Warband more than I enjoy the new QOL stuff in Bannerlord.

I'm not gonna say that Bannerlord won't eventually be better than Warband. I just don't think it is right now, that it's got a long way to go before it gets there, and that its pace of development (and demonstrated priorities in said development) is making me think we aren't getting there any time soon.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
For me I think the Character development system and combat AI stuff is the most frustrating thing to have skipped over.
I've talked at length about what's wrong with both but combat problems have actually gotten worse over the last few versions.
If I could just build a better character and have troops do what I tell them competently, the basic game would be so much more enjoyable.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
This game needs improvements on its core gameplay instead of focusing on unrelated feature additions.

If the core of the game is not fixed, the game will keep feeling shallow and robotic even if it receives numerous feature updates.

To be specific, let me give some examples. Even though the below features are valuable, the game will not be complete without its core fixed.

Individual feature examples that will not fix the game only by themselves:
  • Smithing (already exists)
  • Feasts
  • Grand tournaments
  • Ships
  • ... so on
Core feature examples that when added will fix the game gradually by increasing its depth:
  • Clans and marriage (already exists)
  • Rebellions (already exists)
  • New terrain system (is being implemented)
  • Campaign map city and keep models resembling their scenes
  • Different scenes
  • Scene interactions, a reason to visit scenes
  • Better combat and siege AI
  • Different combat tactics for lords
  • Better NPC dialogue with caravan leaders, villagers, village elders, town notables, gang leaders, etc.
  • Distinct lord dialogue based on their traits and characteristics, and also based on their history with the player
  • Factions feeling different instead of being copy-paste of each other in terms of strategy
  • Really different characteristics and dialogue for rulers
  • ... so on

Looking forward to hear your opinions. When replying, please keep in mind that I am not saying individual features exemplified above are unnecessary. I am only trying to, by making a comparison, emphasize the importance of the core of the game that TW mostly seems to have ignored so far and, I am afraid, we will not have the game we all wait for if these parts are left untouched.
Yep your right for the most part. I would add that I would love to see some real, active city management. Things like dealing with a fire or making a decisions where you have to decide between a bigger barracks or a larger market, you know, events and stuff and decision that matter beyond just leveling everything to 3 and forgetting about it.

I will say though that adding ships, sea travel and naval combat might not fix anything but unlike Feasts and Grand Tournaments, I think it could add a lot of depth including things like Naval Invasions, Sea Trade Routes, Piracy, Naval Combat, Perhaps factions that excel at Naval Warfare to add flavor, things like that.
 

AxiosXiphos

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I think what makes people worried is that they think Taleworlds are going to one day suddenly declare the game finished and never touch it again. I disagree with this notion; Taleworlds will be working on this game for years and years to come.

Hell I doubt it will even be out of EA in 2021.

It this unreasonably slow? Perhaps. But it isn't unexpected; we did wait 8 years for the release!
 

Lesbosisles

Squire
What do you need these for? In Viking Conquest ships were the least favourite of the features for me. Very clanky. And if you pick some quest like "Kill bandits" they may be at sea for months and you won't find them. But at least, in VC there was a huge water territory, which is not the case for Bannerlord.
 

redmark

Squire
Looking forward to hear your opinions. When replying, please keep in mind that I am not saying individual features exemplified above are unnecessary. I am only trying to, by making a comparison, emphasize the importance of the core of the game that TW mostly seems to have ignored so far and, I am afraid, we will not have the game we all wait for if these parts are left untouched.
I don't really get the concern from your post - the stuff you suggest TW are ignoring you actually note that some exist (recently implemented) or are being implemented. Most of the others are constantly being tweaked or added incrementally. Effectively, your concern is that TW is ignoring stuff that they're not infact ignoring?
 

Dreed89

Sergeant
I don't really get the concern from your post - the stuff you suggest TW are ignoring you actually note that some exist (recently implemented) or are being implemented. Most of the others are constantly being tweaked or added incrementally. Effectively, your concern is that TW is ignoring stuff that they're not infact ignoring?
There have not been any concrete word by TW on future of core features like scene interactions, NPCs, dialogue diversity, characteristics of lords, better and memorable relationships with lords, and so on.

There are still "never mind" dialogues in the game. Is that it or what kind of dialogue will be added? When implemented, will it only be a dummy and static text?

Will all lords be copies of each other?

Will there ever be a reason to visit those beautiful scenes?

What is the company's vision on all this? Will the game receive soul? Is this more or less it?
 

Dreed89

Sergeant
What do you need these for? In Viking Conquest ships were the least favourite of the features for me. Very clanky. And if you pick some quest like "Kill bandits" they may be at sea for months and you won't find them. But at least, in VC there was a huge water territory, which is not the case for Bannerlord.
Same for me. I did not like ships either because it did not play out well with current graphics/engine etc. Seemed too artificial and mechanical to me.

Just said ships to exemplify a feature.
 
I disagree with the OP that NPC dialogs and interactions are a core feature of the game, they are merely a RPG layer that adds flavor. Obviously they are more important to RPG fans (like me), but not to everyone. There are plenty of players that don't want to read, but enjoy the action and the gore. Yes, they are uncultured swine, but the game is for everybody. So the core part are the battles and everything directly related to battles.

I would like to see Bannerlord development follow two different principles:
1. Important core features may take long time to get right but need to be made right: sieges, battle AI, strategic AI, balancing of items, troops, factions.
They simply need to make these work well, regardless of time needed, since this is the meat of the game.
2. Flavor features that add immersion, lore or give the player variety of activities (quests, trade, banditry, other new mechanics; various types of battles, various foes). These are not so important, and need to be prioritized by cost effectiveness.
For example: handmade companions are easy to make, so they should be made; a great number of new battle maps (their new regional system) are hard to make and need to scrapped or scaled down, even if it's a desirable feature (I'm assuming here that it takes a huge effort).
The goal here is to do as much as possible but to try to do it in a limited time, so a release becomes possible at all and we don't wait several more years for them to finish the game. And then a few years more for the big mods.
Taleworlds already seems to work in this mode by scrapping possible features based on cost, but we don't really know if this is a consistent approach to get to an acceptable release sooner, or weird personal antics by the "decision makers".
 

redmark

Squire
There have not been any concrete word by TW on future of core features like scene interactions, NPCs, dialogue diversity, characteristics of lords, better and memorable relationships with lords, and so on.

There are still "never mind" dialogues in the game. Is that it or what kind of dialogue will be added? When implemented, will it only be a dummy and static text?

Will all lords be copies of each other?

Will there ever be a reason to visit those beautiful scenes?

What is the company's vision on all this? Will the game receive soul? Is this more or less it?
There will always be a 'never mind' option - it's the back out. It stands out if it's the only option available, but it usually isn't unless you've exhausted other options (barter, 'what do you think of your ruler', marriage options, etc.).

Your list:
  • Clans and marriage (already exists)
  • Rebellions (already exists)
  • New terrain system (is being implemented)
  • Campaign map city and keep models resembling their scenes (new scenes in roadmap; possibly they intend to resemble campaign models)
  • Different scenes (in the roadmap)
  • Scene interactions, a reason to visit scenes (in the eye of the beholder? - anything that forces people to visit scenes - you can already choose to - will be opposed by players who don't want to, or whose hardware means a wait of several seconds to load the scene)
  • Better combat and siege AI (in roadmap, constant tweaks)
  • Different combat tactics for lords (this partly exists? agree could be extended with traits)
  • Better NPC dialogue with caravan leaders, villagers, village elders, town notables, gang leaders, etc. (better how? most people don't read it; legitimate area for mods to expand for those who want it)
  • Distinct lord dialogue based on their traits and characteristics, and also based on their history with the player (there is some already; could be extended)
  • Factions feeling different instead of being copy-paste of each other in terms of strategy (lots of threads with disagreements on what direction this should go in; partly troop roster/balance discussions; e.g. why do imperials have so few cavalry and Battanians so few archers)
  • Really different characteristics and dialogue for rulers (see better NPC dialogue; maybe some of the main quest dialogue could be repeated/extended/available outside of the main quest)
 

Maroon

Grandmaster Knight
WBWF&SNW
I think what makes people worried is that they think Taleworlds are going to one day suddenly declare the game finished and never touch it again. I disagree with this notion; Taleworlds will be working on this game for years and years to come.

Hell I doubt it will even be out of EA in 2021.

It this unreasonably slow? Perhaps. But it isn't unexpected; we did wait 8 years for the release!

tRhSbGp.png

Source

In November, TW felt like it was reasonable to say they'd release 1.0 in March. With the caveat of delays of course, but come on.
 
Top Bottom