-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Poll - Are u satisfied with how TW has been tackling this EA?
- Thread starter HumanCancer
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Warlord123123
Regular
I wish they listened community more not arrogant managers that think they know better and can ignore forum completely.
I mean.. managers don't buy your games, we do.
I mean.. managers don't buy your games, we do.
fanugi
Sergeant
Ive been playing from the start and i get the same errors/crashes now that i did then. It's almost a year and I feel like this game is just going in circles with minor improvements along the way. It really sucks this has been a bad rollout. Basic stuff like being able to give your parties orders, fix marriage so it's not a percent roll (maybe it's a duel), make the game interesting with some spy stuff or diplomacy improvements. Make the game more than fighting the same friggin battles over and over again to where the most fun thing, the battles, are tedious and mean nothing. I think i need a break. Wake me up when something good happens.
C'mon TW I am starting to think I have been backing the wrong horse! (Get it, huh?)
C'mon TW I am starting to think I have been backing the wrong horse! (Get it, huh?)
Absolutely, warband multiplayer is amazing to this day even past it's golden age while bannerlord is almost dead already not even counting the lots and lots of things that needs to be fixed/changed to become on par with warband.
Whenever i try to give it a go again most times i can't even find a game to play with the stupid matchmaking and too few people playing it, in warband i just choose a good server from the list and bam i'm in having a blast.
Why try to reinvent the wheel when it's was perfectly round and fine before?
maybe.... skins ?
Im kinda upset with Bannerlord Mexxico tries his best to get what we the Community want but It seems like Management has Severely Limited Any sort of Changes Mexxico can Make and I am beginning to loose Faith in the game.
Yep same here.
I am kind of neutral. On one hand they are pushing out lots of patching and I am surprising pleased at how much developer interaction they have with their community. Hell I even had a developer chime in on one of my posts and ask my opinion about the topic. That was amazing. Basically they really seem to care and really do seem to want to make things better.
On the other hand, they seem to be focusing energy on a lot of things that are pretty meaningless like small, tiny balance changes, adding features that already exist as mods, stubbornly clinging to systems that clearly are broken and don't work right all the while never really addressing or resolving things that really need to be fixed. Also they don't seem to be making any real progress. I mean I quit playing back in the Apr/May time frame and came back to a game that hasn't really seemed to change much at all. Most of the things I found as issues back then are still issues today. It just feels like there is no progress and in some way things went a bit backward. Also I was expecting a ton of features to be added but nothing, aside from incorporating a few mods, was.
So yeah, I have very mixed feelings. A part of me honestly believes that if they aren't going to actually fix things that have been issues since day one of EA, they just need to wrap things up and get out of the way of the modders who WILL actually fix this things and even if the modders can't fix it, the modders will still make enough of a difference that I will want to continue playing for thousands of hours playing with this mod or that. However, the constant patches requiring constant mod updates seem to be keeping a lot of modders away so modders fixing things isn't really going to happen until the devs finalize and quit patching.
On the other hand, they seem to be focusing energy on a lot of things that are pretty meaningless like small, tiny balance changes, adding features that already exist as mods, stubbornly clinging to systems that clearly are broken and don't work right all the while never really addressing or resolving things that really need to be fixed. Also they don't seem to be making any real progress. I mean I quit playing back in the Apr/May time frame and came back to a game that hasn't really seemed to change much at all. Most of the things I found as issues back then are still issues today. It just feels like there is no progress and in some way things went a bit backward. Also I was expecting a ton of features to be added but nothing, aside from incorporating a few mods, was.
So yeah, I have very mixed feelings. A part of me honestly believes that if they aren't going to actually fix things that have been issues since day one of EA, they just need to wrap things up and get out of the way of the modders who WILL actually fix this things and even if the modders can't fix it, the modders will still make enough of a difference that I will want to continue playing for thousands of hours playing with this mod or that. However, the constant patches requiring constant mod updates seem to be keeping a lot of modders away so modders fixing things isn't really going to happen until the devs finalize and quit patching.
Oh yeah, I fully agree. Mexxico actually jumped into one of my post about friendly lords actually stealing troops you have meticulously squirreled away in one of your fiefs for future use asking out opinion about if we would like to see this feature disabled or not which was great on his part but one of the things he said just totally shocked me. He said, "Don't ask for me to make this a toggle because it will be rejected 100%". I was like why would making friendly lords, stealing your troops or not be something that you can't make a toggle? I mean by the way he said it, it obviously could be done so why could a simple toggle option to allow it or not be such an issue that he had to make us aware it would be an issue.
I ended up very much getting a "This is our game and despite what our players want, we are going to do it our way" vibe from that. Not on the part of Mexxico who genuinely seemed to be trying to address something we didn't like about the game, but for the fact that apparently the management team was completely closed minded about doing something like adding more gameplay experience related customizations through toggles and sliders. Not sure if that is the case, but I have dealt with enough toxic management teams in other games to make me wonder how much the management team is really interested in its communities opinions. I mean you can have a great community liaison/advocate like the role Mexxico and a few other devs have taken on the forums but if management really isn't listening to the feedback they receive through that liaison nothing is going to improve.
They push out patches but we have big issues like memory leaks that are still pervasive, sieges have some of the worst pathing I've ever seen. We have almost no real clan control, the perks still aren't finished after a year, smithing is still broke asf, ruling a Kingdom is a joke, other gameplay options like trading and bandit playthroughs are so thin they're anorexic. I could go on and on but you get the idea.
I've been involved with 4 betas, and this is my 8th ea and this has to be one of the worst dev teams for interaction with the community with the exception a couple of people. I mean the community manager rarely ever ever comes on the forums except to make a patch notes announcement. Armagan, the founder, hasn't posted on these forums in almost a year. All you have to do is go back over the past several years and you'll see the 1 theme that gets discussed over and over again is how the devs need to be more active on the forums. I've been a member for 4 years and besides mexxico,I couldn't tell you whether the devs actually give a **** or not.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
This is one of the things I WON'T criticize them for, they should do more of that! The less we have to rely on mods for simple stuff that should be in the base game, the better, because it means shorter modlists with less potential for conflicts and crashes.
This is how I feel as well. Rebellions, pillaging, and child education are the only noteworthy features I can think of in the 10 months since launch, everything else is bugfixes and balance changes.
All I wanted was Warband +sieges +better engine, I thought if I set the bar really low I couldn't be disappointed. And yet we're still not even close to that goal.
Uh, well, yeah?
The problem with developers who come in with the idea that they are going to be making the sort of games they want to play is... they are going to make the games THEY want to play.
They are for our forum immersion, so we have the feeling we could actually do something like:
"This is a generic suggetion thread."
We could try to suggest some stuff that would make the game less complex and faster paced, they seem to be open for that at least like:
"What about killstreaks like in CoD? After 5 kills in less than 1 minute you can call the eagles from Lord of the Rings and they´ll drop stuff onto the battlefield. Something like loot boxes and there is like a 0,53% chance you´ll get a good armor/weapon out of that. Then they´ll stay to bomb the enemy troops with the rocks the looters throw which can kill any unit with 1 hit."
Yeah I am in system shock to be honest. I left back in early May to take a break and allow the game to develop a bit and finally came back 9 months later to what appears to be a carbon copy of the game I was playing back in May despite all the patches. I have to admit I am having trouble wrapping my head around the fact that so little progress has been made and keep telling myself the changes are just subtle and I am not noticing them because it has been so long since I played and just don't remember how bad it was back then compared to now. Somehow though, I am failing to convince myself.
You might be right about Mexxico as well. Now that I think about it he is the only one that really seems to be actively trying to assist.
To be honest I do like that they are adding features from the mods and agree that it would be nice to not have to rely on mods to add or fix things that should be in the game and would be easy to add to the game.
HOWEVER
My issue is that there is so little progress on big core issues to the game that I feel like they are putting time and resources into little details like some of the quality of life mods added at the expense of fixing the core framework of the game. I would be all for them incorporating mods if they were things like the RTS mod which allows you to go to birds eye view and actually give commands to your formations to attack an enemy formation not just charge at the closest enemy or one of the diplomacy mods that massively expanded on what you could do as a King or the Siege Fix mod that actually did a pretty good job of actually fixing the issue with your troops climbing ladders and siege towers or Bannerlord Tweaks which has about 30-40 toggles and sliders to allow you to customize dozens of aspects of the game. However they aren't adding these mods, rather just little Quality of Life mods like being able to tag a settlement in the encyclopedia so you can easily find it on the map.
What is more frustrating is if a modder can come up with these deep systems to correct many of the things we find wrong with the game, why the hell can't Taleworlds, with access to the source code, do the same thing? How are mods better at fixing things than changes to Native program?
As to what I wanted out of the game. Yeah Warband, with better sieges and better engine and better modding support would have been fine and I am finding that there are a lot of core mechanics from Warband that I am really missing from Bannerlord. All told, aside from graphics and battle size, I think Warband actually is the better game, so far at least.
Many cool and essential stuff have been added but many things are yet to come. I hope that the mod support would be on another level after the release so that modders could make their stuff without being afraid it to stop working after every patch. Modders sure can add many stuff that different players need.
Bad
Most things that Warband has are missing, there's not much QOL to this entry that was needed, they ruined multiplayer with the class system, and they're very slow and not very open during development.
I do not feel they have a goal, just milking EA and scrapping things left and right to make updates quicker but release sparsely with sales to make quick cash.
They openly admitted to making the multiplayer a live service down the line, which is a red flag. That means constant game updates, will break the singleplayer and its mods, just like Fallout 4 with the Creation Club constant updates broke the modding scene.
Most things that Warband has are missing, there's not much QOL to this entry that was needed, they ruined multiplayer with the class system, and they're very slow and not very open during development.
I do not feel they have a goal, just milking EA and scrapping things left and right to make updates quicker but release sparsely with sales to make quick cash.
They openly admitted to making the multiplayer a live service down the line, which is a red flag. That means constant game updates, will break the singleplayer and its mods, just like Fallout 4 with the Creation Club constant updates broke the modding scene.
Modders have complete freedom while devs have to coordinate everything to make sure it doesn't break something else or get broken by an update.
Warlord123123
Regular
Also, devs should follow priorities set by the project leader/product owner.
If this project leader/product owner is not flexible and has his own priorities (lives in his own alternative reality), then nothing that is proposed by the community will go thru.
