My dissapointment grows. Game still feels barren.

Users who are viewing this thread

RJ_Sera

Veteran
I find weird why my troops have a state of art military outfit and I have poor rags..., ok not exactly true because I made a good marriage, with Ira, and I get good stuff,despite having sold half, because I was a poor guy at the time. All this just to say that the game has things that break immersion, no matter I like it.
this a question i asked myself when i was playing warband long time ago.My troops are richer than their lord haha
 
Custom troop trees will be made by modders, but I can't understand why TW would not do it, it's probably the most requested feature. I mean they already scrapped the castle building feature.
 

danEN

Knight at Arms
WBM&BWF&SNWVC
Yeah. They have given us a statement on their immediate plans, to be fair, but that's not the same as an actual roadmap for future plans.
Thing about this is though, if you go by their current rate they have about 5-6 patches until we've reached a year in EA. Now I see absolutely no way they can reach their goal of releasing the game after a year in EA and have all of the features they want in it.

Unless they're keeping it quiet and a lot of content is pretty much finished and ready to go something is going to have to give. More time in EA or an unfinished/unpolished game. Even for the ones like me who are giving TW's until full release before we completely judge them, it's not promising.
 
Thing about this is though, if you go by their current rate they have about 5-6 patches until we've reached a year in EA. Now I see absolutely no way they can reach their goal of releasing the game after a year in EA and have all of the features they want in it.

Unless they're keeping it quiet and a lot of content is pretty much finished and ready to go something is going to have to give. More time in EA or an unfinished/unpolished game. Even for the ones like me who are giving TW's until full release before we completely judge them, it's not promising.

I know, unless they plan on having no features more less I don't see how they finish in a year.
 

Ganeic

Recruit
I think the best feature of feast was the grand tournament that ensued with all the lords participating. But yes it would be nice if it was implemented, perhaps factions only have first during peace time so they don't get stomped during war. But yeah with armies and stuff and so much land to spread around it may be adding to snowball effects sadly.
 

five bucks

Squire
I think the best feature of feast was the grand tournament that ensued with all the lords participating. But yes it would be nice if it was implemented, perhaps factions only have first during peace time so they don't get stomped during war. But yeah with armies and stuff and so much land to spread around it may be adding to snowball effects sadly.
Easy fix. Factions losing wars don't hold feasts. Factions holding large amounts of territory will feast, even if they're currently winning a war (think of it as getting cocky and celebrating their victory). Therefore, feasts will actually help prevent snowballing.
 

Darkath

Recruit
Thing about this is though, if you go by their current rate they have about 5-6 patches until we've reached a year in EA. Now I see absolutely no way they can reach their goal of releasing the game after a year in EA and have all of the features they want in it.

Unless they're keeping it quiet and a lot of content is pretty much finished and ready to go something is going to have to give. More time in EA or an unfinished/unpolished game. Even for the ones like me who are giving TW's until full release before we completely judge them, it's not promising.

Sometimes this is the way it goes during EAs, a lot of content is held back in the pipeline while they fixe core gameplay issues in the public branches (here we can think of AI snowballing, unit balance etc.) and once this core gameplay feels solid the content starts coming down at an increased rate.
However with Bannerlord's patch history and the immediate plans that were announced, we have a mixed bag of fixes, content and features which make me think they dont have this kind of separate release schedule for content.

Also in a first year of EA, a lot of efforts usually goes on the technical side of the game (Crashes, Performances, major/game breaking bugs) while other parts doesn't get as much looked to. This is compounded x100 with the fact TW has their own custom engine they need to develop and maintain.
 

Ganeic

Recruit
Easy fix. Factions losing wars don't hold feasts. Factions holding large amounts of territory will feast, even if they're currently winning a war (think of it as getting cocky and celebrating their victory). Therefore, feasts will actually help prevent snowballing.
Very good point yeah. I agree haha.

Sometimes this is the way it goes during EAs, a lot of content is held back in the pipeline while they fixe core gameplay issues in the public branches (here we can think of AI snowballing, unit balance etc.) and once this core gameplay feels solid the content starts coming down at an increased rate.
However with Bannerlord's patch history and the immediate plans that were announced, we have a mixed bag of fixes, content and features which make me think they dont have this kind of separate release schedule for content.

Also in a first year of EA, a lot of efforts usually goes on the technical side of the game (Crashes, Performances, major/game breaking bugs) while other parts doesn't get as much looked to. This is compounded x100 with the fact TW has their own custom engine they need to develop and maintain.

Well it makes sense to turn attention to make the game stable for users before addressing issues such as balance. To get the core game working is step 1:

Things like balance etc are things that can be worked at over time. Things like 'Smithing' being broken easy to get money and stuff like that should get low priority over other things as that's more performance-based should have higher priority to ensure the game runs smooth for more people and works properly.

I mean if people want to Exploit something very obvious that's up to them. Its not really a problem if it can easily be avoided by not using an exploit.
 

five bucks

Squire
I mean if people want to Exploit something very obvious that's up to them. Its not really a problem if it can easily be avoided by not using an exploit.
This. Exploits are the lowest-priority to fix.

Also, it makes little sense to balance the game and then add new content, because often new content can break the game's balancing. The priority order should be content > balancing things out of player's control > balancing things in player's control (exploits).
 

Dreed89

Sergeant at Arms
I have just moved onto other games while waiting for this game to be finished. It think it will help so that I will not be fatigued of the game in early access and will still have excitement left for the official release. I do this because I like this game.

I have played for more than 150 hours already anyway. Now just checking the forums every day for funny topics and laughing at the posts of a few toxic users, seeing how random people can fight over a game, and then threads get locked. :smile: And meanwhile I follow the posts of particular reasonable people.
 

Klender

Recruit
I miss the random scene generation ( based on location ). It really should be optional and yes i dislike most if not all the scene taleworlds have made, they lack the "historical" feel of brutality of feudal life.

I honestly think the best way to address this lack of depth is to pivot to a procedural generated EVERYTHING. Starting a new game procedural generates castles ( or the tech level of castles) layout, towns, lords, ladies, troop load out, everything. Of course proper procedural generation has good assets and seeds with a firm rule set. It wont be balanced the way taleworlds is hoping for but it will have huge depth and replay ability! Also the concept of balance is antithetical to reality, reality isn't balanced. There also a huge missed opportunity for logistics and management of armies as well, caravans, patrols, scouts.
I missed the random scene gen since day one. It makes battles repetitive in my opinion.
The idea of a fully generated map is quite a cool idea. I believe there isn't enough implanted as a good foundation to have it yet.
Its a bit disappointed on the progress there is in the game(Because of the announcement and expect at least the same amount what there was for warband). I do see the effort but the random scene generator was the one I enjoyed the most. It made battles extremely unpredictable. I believe is should have been in the game from the start.

I would love to see something like that. For a while I have been playing 'Dwarf fortress' (Not sure if you know it) its fully generated and everything has or does something. It always makes me think of Mount and blade a bit. Certain systems that could be added and how cool it would make the game.
I was thinking of village progression. Not in choosing a town but actually building one.
What if you don't want to be part of a kingdom but want to make your own town in the wild where bandits lay to attack the village that you are building up.

With resources you gather and man that help with building. Ending up with a castle. It would be cool to see a simplified system of the scene editor but as 'Lego brick' system.The amount of resources you have of wood or rock. to make the village/castle YOU WANT.
I believe it would make the world feel more alive and that you as the player can accomplish something like that.

Although is may see some technical difficulties in this feature as for AI. The lego system could be made with already made paths I quess. I believe its doable and would be awesome to see implemented or made.
I haven't seen something like it in Warband (Maybe there was but didn't know, if so I quess I will have to check that out!).
 

PowerToni

Recruit
M&BWBWF&SNW
+1. This game as been sold as "almost finished, just needs some refinement", but I think the development isn't even at 50%. The lack of content is embarassing compared to their previous games. Let's not even talk about the multiplayer part. 8 YEARS GUYS, just remember that.
 
Sometimes this is the way it goes during EAs, a lot of content is held back in the pipeline while they fixe core gameplay issues in the public branches (here we can think of AI snowballing, unit balance etc.) and once this core gameplay feels solid the content starts coming down at an increased rate.
However with Bannerlord's patch history and the immediate plans that were announced, we have a mixed bag of fixes, content and features which make me think they dont have this kind of separate release schedule for content.

Also in a first year of EA, a lot of efforts usually goes on the technical side of the game (Crashes, Performances, major/game breaking bugs) while other parts doesn't get as much looked to. This is compounded x100 with the fact TW has their own custom engine they need to develop and maintain.
Yeah I think this is it right here. You can't/shouldn't build on a weak or broken foundation. I've seen the EA process in Bannerlord mostly focus on the foundation. I would expect the foundation to be complete by the EA date, but I would also expect them to build on that foundation over the next year or two. Of course modders will do this, but as far as the base game goes, I'd be pretty disappointed if they ended their development with just a complete foundation. 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 were pretty big steps forward as far as perks go. Mexxico detailed significant empire simulation changes for 1.5.6 which is very exciting. 1.5.5 should come out today or tomorrow, and while they haven't really detailed what will be in it, I'd expect perk fixes, the new ranged combat rework, maybe some siege fixes?, and more little stuff. I'm thinking 1.5.6 will arrive by Christmas, meaning perks should be complete, the campaign simulation should be healthier, sieges should be better, which are some of the biggest complaints with the foundation, leaving 3 months for further fixes, changes, and more. I'm optimistic.
 

darkmanx23

Recruit
i respect you guys have ur hopes high that this lack of content is just because its early access and once it gets full release all will be well but temper those expectations a bit... it looks like this is it this is the game, sure they will add little things here and there fix more bugs but it doesnt seem like they have any plans on big future content and even if they do they probably havent started working on it yet so by the time they released it most people will probably have moved on
 

Xaerdys

Regular
but I think the development isn't even at 50%. The lack of content is embarassing compared to their previous games. [...] 8 YEARS GUYS, just remember that.

Though to be fair.:

8 years between announcement and EA. Maybe that is slow, I really don't know. But there might be reasons.

It's not like the game was 8 years in Early Access. Mount and Blade was basically 4 years in EA and Warband was released as standalone improved version, but two years later, meaning Warband was basically 6 years in EA.

50% or not might be debatable, this depends vastly upon how features are valued.
 

Akka

Sergeant
Though to be fair.:

8 years between announcement and EA. Maybe that is slow, I really don't know.
It is. It's EXTREMELY slow.
Just to give some measure of comparison, World of Warcraft, which is a pretty big game, had a SMALLER team (IIRC, there were 30 guys working on it), was released late 2004 and was started around 2000. That's 4-5 years total.
 

Xaerdys

Regular
It is. It's EXTREMELY slow.
Just to give some measure of comparison, World of Warcraft, which is a pretty big game, had a SMALLER team (IIRC, there were 30 guys working on it), was released late 2004 and was started around 2000. That's 4-5 years total.

Well I'm not saying they are not slow. But I think I'd need a deeper insight into the industry to actually evaluate that claim. For instance:

Let me try to play the role of a defender for TW, just for a moment. The following things could be said about your argument:

- World of Warcraft is a very different game. These two might not be comparable at all.
- Blizzard was (I think) much bigger then, than TW is right know.
- You yourself aren't sure whether the figure of 30 people is correct, but even if this was true, they could still have outsourced things. Blizzard was likely able to do that.
- WOW reused graphics from War Craft III; also storywise the world of World of War Craft was already existing, while the universe for Bannerlord mostly, due to being a prequel, had to be developed
- Game developement has changed vastly in the last 15 years, it might be much harder to publish a game to the satisfaction of players now then it was back then
- also there was an attempt of coup in turkey, resulting in a two year long state of emergency. I can only speculate, whether this influenced developement or not

[/lawyermode off]

To be clear, I am not saying you're wrong, but I don't think that the sheer lenght of the developement process alone is an argument for any state the game should or would have to have at a single point in time.
 

Akka

Sergeant
Well I'm not saying they are not slow. But I think I'd need a deeper insight into the industry to actually evaluate that claim. For instance:

Let me try to play the role of a defender for TW, just for a moment. The following things could be said about your argument:

- World of Warcraft is a very different game. These two might not be comparable at all.
- Blizzard was (I think) much bigger then, than TW is right know.
- You yourself aren't sure whether the figure of 30 people is correct, but even if this was true, they could still have outsourced things. Blizzard was likely able to do that.
- WOW reused graphics from War Craft III; also storywise the world of World of War Craft was already existing, while the universe for Bannerlord mostly, due to being a prequel, had to be developed
- Game developement has changed vastly in the last 15 years, it might be much harder to publish a game to the satisfaction of players now then it was back then
- also there was an attempt of coup in turkey, resulting in a two year long state of emergency. I can only speculate, whether this influenced developement or not

[/lawyermode off]

To be clear, I am not saying you're wrong, but I don't think that the sheer lenght of the developement process alone is an argument for any state the game should or would have to have at a single point in time.
I understand your point, but just to put things into perspective, and considering you use the argument that Blizzard could reuse the assets of Warcraft 3 and that Bannerlord had to "build the world" : Bannerlord has been in development (2010-2020) for nearly exactly the same amount of time as from the START of the development of Warcraft 2 (late 1994) to the RELEASE of World of Warcraft (late 2004).
Yes, that means Warcraft 2 + Starcraft + Warcraft 3 + World of Warcraft were started, developped and released during the same span of time than Bannerlord alone.
So it kinda defeats most of the lawyers arguments about building the world and reusing assets :grin:
 
Top Bottom