-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Patch Notes e1.2.0 & Beta e1.3.0
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
They spent the first 3 weeks fixing bugs and dealing with performance issues. It was only recently we saw fixes toward the campaign AI. They already said the storyline and kingdom management are the first two things they will work on. They also mentioned perks are being redone.
I'd say that's a fairly decent roadmap for now.
That's a nice set of guidelines, but I think he's saying that something a bit more concrete from the devs would be welcome.
You know, when they add some new features they promised, it will comes with huge amount of new bug and new performance problem...
Anyway, it seems that no 1.4 update today.
Dabos37
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Why not :'-(
He doesn't know if there's no update today any more than the rest of us do.
Normally patches (if they do drop) drop around 3 hours from now.
Normally patches (if they do drop) drop around 3 hours from now.
It would be nice to have some sort of communication though. Since the last hotfix there are several gamebreaking crashes like the one when pressing the "Done" button after battles that makes the game litterally unplayable. I started three different campaigns hoping this issue won't happen again, but the only thing i got are three broken campaigns that can't progress further.
Anything more concrete from the devs will just lead to more wailing and gnashing of teeth over timelines, etc. And God help TW the first time a deadline gets pushed back by even 1 day... This community is a ****show.
That said, I there is one thing I would like:
A list of features expected to be complete before full release. Doesn't have to be too specific and definitely doesn't need timelines/dates, but I feel like having an official "this is everything not in the game currently that will be added" post could help.
Last edited:
Sidhwen_Khorest
Sergeant
Agreed, no timeline needed, but a list of things they are currently planning on putting in would be sweet. I've stopped coming to the forums as much recently because a lot of threads are just people speculating over what the game is going to become or suggesting the same things over and over.
I'm not expecting 1.3 to go to main release yet. The amount of noise about performance problems people were having on it has died down, but I think that's because the people who were getting the problems stopped playing it.
The performance problems didn't hit me as hard as some, mainly because I was mostly doing small battles (less than 200 total participants) and even my little GTX 1050 was fine with that on medium settings. But now that my campaign is to the point where large battles are becoming common, I'm feeling the pinch. I have to put settings to minimum and make the game look like Warband to play a 1000 man battle as anything other than a slide show currently on 1.3. On 1.2 I could keep the medium settings and it would understandably struggle with 1000 men, but it was still playable.
The performance problems didn't hit me as hard as some, mainly because I was mostly doing small battles (less than 200 total participants) and even my little GTX 1050 was fine with that on medium settings. But now that my campaign is to the point where large battles are becoming common, I'm feeling the pinch. I have to put settings to minimum and make the game look like Warband to play a 1000 man battle as anything other than a slide show currently on 1.3. On 1.2 I could keep the medium settings and it would understandably struggle with 1000 men, but it was still playable.
Maximum997
Squire
It is not about GPU. In 1000 battles my rtx2080 barely get to 50% on highest settings, but cpu is always 100%. And i have shadows, ragdolls and other hard for cpu option on lowest.
AverageSturgian
Recruit
I agree the issue is related to CPU usage. Even my gtx 1060 Ti to almost highest or high settings never hits over 60-70% usage, In 700 numbers of men max everything runs smooth with low shadows and ragdolls to 10. However during sieges in some specific maps cpu hits 100% usage and the lag is crazy.
I just play 200 man battles until they get that fixed.. no point doing my eyes in ...
you know, a road map doesn't need ****ing set dates, it just needs to state in an orderly manner what the **** they want to do with the game, so please mate, don't try to pull this one on us. I mean, you'd benefit from it too, you know?
He's not pulling anything on anyone, he just has a different expectation of what people might mean when they use the term "roadmap". He just described what you define as a roadmap and said he'd like one, so you are actually in agreement on everything other than the label.
+1
From my day-to-day interaction with project planning and management, the term "roadmap" has very specific connotations. Details like deadlines and rough deliverables are a part of that. Instead I'd use something like "feature list" or even "release requirements" (to use a more technical phrase) for what I'd like to see. That's just the way I interpret those words though.
If we take into acount the way they are handling EA so far, I think instead of feature list, something along the lines of stuff they are working on would be a lot better.
For example: Hey community! We are currently working to fix up and balance troop trees and simulations. If you can, can you keep an eye out on engaging armies to see any oddities like the larger more powerful army losing heavily against the weaker one?
It's just I don't think TW themselves have much of a longterm plan, and if they wish to do things step by step going with flow, I think it would be beneficial for stats if they simply state a list they intend to work on for 1-2 months, then again after that time period, and so forth till next year. They already dug their grave with announcing weekly beta with possible delays, so I don't think the community is holding their timeframes accountable at this point.
This, just a brief overview of something TW has planned or is working on putting in the game is all I ask.
