Recent comment by Callum spills the beans on Bannerlord combat in a really disheartening way.

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The community managers comments to the community are up for discussion. How are some of you so afraid of upsetting them? I'm just at a loss for people with this position.
Too many players just think we need to accept everything TW throws at us, useless updates, updates which breaks stuff, not fixing known bugs that are in the game for weeks and were fixed by mods weeks ago (hello formation bug).

I mean, we have to accept what they do, but at least we can say our opinion on those stuff.

But it still seems like that a lot of the paying customers are fine with the state of the game because EA and because mods will improve it....small indie company (they aren´t small) and whatever.

Also I think they told Mexxico to not talk to us that offen, because he already said stuff like "I was for the truce period, but other devs were against it", so they now told their community manager to do the speaking. What did Callum do, as a COMMUNITY MANAGER, weeks ago? Not much but posting the patch notes. Mexxico was even talking to us on the weekend (which I don´t expect!!).

This is a very good example how to do not do EA.

In my opinion this game should be fine even without mods, mods should just make it better. And not like, give us the basics and mods will fix it in a few years.

It´s not like that Bannerlord is the first game ever supporting mods in the year 2020. It´s of course it´s good that TW is very open for modding, but that´s not something special anymore.

We all paid our money (50€, that´s not the common EA price, the common EA price is more like 10-25€).
 
Last edited:
I agree with you about the sentiment of the last bit, although I wouldn't dismiss it all as just white knighting as there is a certain weary level of pragmatism to it as well. Essentially I'd like more feedback from devs and while I don't think that Callum will be crying himself to sleep over this I also don't think it will encourage him to pop his head over the parapet and give us any more info on how things are progressing and the decisions being made.

At this point, not sure if it even makes a difference really? And again, I sincerely get where you are coming from, but if we are only getting 1 comment or post a month about development, do they really have a leg to stand on?

The players don't seem to be involved at all with this EA/development. And from reading post and comments from people who participated in the earlier beta, its appears none of their concerns were appreciated either.
 
Why are people surprised by this? If you compare this to pretty much any strategy game beyond a civ level it's clearly strategy-lite or strategy-sprinkled at best. Every time I say this people take offense. Yet here we have a Community manager basically backing it up as well. If you're looking for an in-depth strategy game bannerlord simply isn't it.

Getting into a battle and seeing what you can actually do with troops makes this very apparent. Not to mention their lackluster development of the campaign mechanics where they're missing even the most basic base to make all the things they've implemented work.

I'm glad he came out and said it, now it's right there for everyone to see,
 
I read his comment earlier and didn't really take it the direction its being spun here. I would like to see more strategy and tactical elements to the game but I think Callum was just saying that the video posted was beyond Bannerlords current scope. Honestly, they have a lot of things to work on right now so expanding the scope is probably a bad idea.
 
Fair point, I did in fact commit a straw man fallacy; guilty as charged. In my opinion, I suppose a self proclaimed and billed strategy game should probably have some actually need for strategy in it though.

I mean it does have need for strategy, unless you're playing on mosh pit difficulty levels? I'm still unsure what's missing from the game that would satisfy you. I'd like ambidextrous mounted archery and phalanxes, but missing features don't change the genre of the game.
 
In my opinion this game should be fine even without mods, mods should just make it better.

I actually don't like using mods most of the time just because they can be unstable and unbalanced in strange ways, it's pretty rare to get a mod that has extensive QA done to it, so I don't think mods is something to be relied on, more like a bonus like you say.

I think Callum was just saying that the video posted was beyond Bannerlords current scope. Honestly, they have a lot of things to work on right now so expanding the scope is probably a bad idea.

+1, the other comments in the thread bring up good points though, like troops remaining in formation instead of breaking apart during charge, shield walls functioning correctly, etc. I don't think he was discrediting those things, hopefully he will clear that up later.
 
Why would any dev talk candidly to us if this is this is how they get treated?

.... because it's EA and if the direcrion they're taking is the wrong one, they should be aware of it.

Also, as far as I am aware, all the staff at TW are adults, and hence should be able to handle criticism of their product.
 
Given the context I fully understand Callum's view. DO NOT ASSUME the context, watch the video (Which should have been posted here honestly). Battles literally take 3x as long, which is cool initially but would get extremely tedious after a very short period of time. I enjoy the direction game is taking, the strategy AI just needs tweaking. And no, realistic strategy (Or any strategy) was never a staple of Warband in anyway.
 
Given the context I fully understand Callum's view. DO NOT ASSUME the context, watch the video (Which should have been posted here honestly). Battles literally take 3x as long, which is cool initially but would get extremely tedious after a very short period of time. I enjoy the direction game is taking, the strategy AI just needs tweaking. And no, realistic strategy (Or any strategy) was never a staple of Warband in anyway.

A link to the video has always been available.....its the first thing in the post.
 
Given the context I fully understand Callum's view. DO NOT ASSUME the context, watch the video (Which should have been posted here honestly). Battles literally take 3x as long, which is cool initially but would get extremely tedious after a very short period of time. I enjoy the direction game is taking, the strategy AI just needs tweaking. And no, realistic strategy (Or any strategy) was never a staple of Warband in anyway.

Okay give the player agency then. Let the player decide how complex he wants the battles to be. Also, talking about actual complexity, not the current system they have now that only increases or diminishes damage taken by units/parties/player.

This game's combat, and many other features for that matter, are completely void of any complex mechanics currently, and based on Callums comment, that may be designed. I don't think i'm misconstruing or going out on a limb by saying that. Callum's comment, in combination with the current status of the game seems to suggest that.
 
I want to comment on the idea of hostility towards dev comments. I believe I understand both sides of the argument pretty well, but if you think about it one side is clearly in a worse position than the other. I am talking about the side which is worried about not upsetting the developers. To be frank, that's advanced Stockholm Syndrome the fear of having the conversation between us players and the devs end due to being to harsh or rather becoming nitpicky at all due to lack of communication. That's such a sorry state for an early access release which promised to be open with the players and refine the game together. If we look a the cause of this situation though it's clear that it's neither the fault of the players, please mods by all means deal with the ones who aren't civil, nor of devs like mexxico&azakhi who have often engaged in conversation with the players which many people see as the saving grace of this early access endeavor. Yet, they aren't really in charge of the game, they can only work with us on their tasks. The leadership of Taleworlds, the higher ups who could actually bring about a change of communication be it dev blogs or more frequent meaningful engagement with the community are nowhere to be found. People want to have a conversation about the game. That is a promise of early access, it's an agreement between the customer and the developer and it was communicated that way for a very long time. Every Gamescom Armağan repeated how M&B pioneered EA and is totally about open development. What we get is two cool lads who are willing to step out and take the risk of engaging with the community despite lots of frustration going around and the leadership of Taleworlds, Armağan is QUIET. People want to know more about what is going on. You can't sell the game and continue on like eight years of silence. This is what is poisoning this community.
 
I've watched the video a bunch of times now, and I really don't see whats so complex about it. Its literally just an army, consisting of multiple groups holding formations while fighting? How is that so complex it would take away from the gameplay? For a self proclaimed medieval simulator, especially with Roman like units, having units stay and fight in formation doesn't really seem like a big ask.

Also, why can't we see different army configurations based on culture or general? Something like that with immersion.

I reject the notion that the video referenced in this post, and remarked upon by Callum is so complex and cumbersome it would take away from the game play. It would make the game better in every possible way.
 
Last edited:
I've watched the video a bunch of times now, and I really don't see whats so complex about it. Its literally just an army, consisting of multiple groups holding formations while fighting? How is that so complex it would take away from the gameplay? For a self proclaimed medieval simulator, especially with Roman like units, having units stay and fight in formation doesn't really seem like a big ask.

Also, why can't we see different army configurations based on culture or general? Something like that with immersion.

I reject the notion that the video referenced in this post, and remarked upon by Callum is so complex and cumberson it would take away from the game play. It would make the game better in every possible way.

I agree entirely, people who want 3 minute battles could have an option to turn formations off, I mean it's not rocket science.
 
I've watched the video a bunch of times now, and I really don't see whats so complex about it. Its literally just an army, consisting of multiple groups holding formations while fighting? How is that so complex it would take away from the gameplay? For a self proclaimed medieval simulator, especially with Roman like units, having units stay and fight in formation doesn't really seem like a big ask.

Also, why can't we see different army configurations based on culture or general? Something like that with immersion.

I reject the notion that the video referenced in this post, and remarked upon by Callum is so complex and cumberson it would take away from the game play. It would make the game better in every possible way.
I'm confused, too. Are we supposed to just F1-F3 every battle?
 
And for the record, i'm not trying to make Callum's life harder, but in all honestly, since we hardly get any communication from Taleworld's about what direction the game is going, i'm glad I stumbled upon this little comment and posted it.
I read his comment earlier and didn't really take it the direction its being spun here. I would like to see more strategy and tactical elements to the game but I think Callum was just saying that the video posted was beyond Bannerlords current scope. Honestly, they have a lot of things to work on right now so expanding the scope is probably a bad idea.

How is a professional army moving and fighting in formation out of scope for a so called, so advertised medieval combat simulator?

You could make an argument if your army primarily consisted of peasants, but once your army is composed mostly of T3+ units, that just goes out the window. There's an idea - scale what formations you can use, and how effective they are with the leadership/tactics skill, that would at least be immersive and give you a sense of progression.
 
"Fast pace action," meaning siege battles are over in 5 minutes... Not what I was looking for in a response.

^^^^^ This ^^^^^

This is the biggest factor in early game snow balling. Sieges aren't anywhere near realistic. Some of the sieges of Constantinople lasted 2 or 3 YEARS(not days). They still weren't successful without the advent of gunpowder.

Trying to take a well defended castle or city should take a minimum of a month, sometimes years for the better defended fiefs. I think they'll add the mechanic for city starvation during a siege(it might be in already but I haven't seen it yet). That's how the majority of sieges were resolved: starvation and capitulation.
 
And for the record, i'm not trying to make Callum's life harder, but in all honestly, since we hardly get any communication from Taleworld's about what direction the game is going, i'm glad I stumbled upon this little comment and posted it.

I still think you're turning an offhand comment into something it's not.
But I suppose this is Callum's fault too.
If the "community manager" makes one post every 3 months, can I really blame you guys for treating it like a mission statement on the direction of the game?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom