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

Currently viewing this thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.

DainMorgot

Veteran
Callum once again has no idea what he is talking about nor he has any clue as to why warband is better than bannerlord's combat even though he played a lot of warband. What a joke.
 
Callum once again has no idea what he is talking about nor he has any clue as to why warband is better than bannerlord's combat even though he played a lot of warband. What a joke.

He's a PR manager, he has to say stuff that represents the company regardless of whether he believes it or not. I would be really surprised if a PR guy was actually genuinely enthusiastic about the game they were promoting.
 

OpenMindedPl

Regular
Just dont be suprised if Callum wont answer you anymore, I would do the same because of crying/yelling nolife kids which are analyzing every single word, only demanding. So funny.

Callum, mate dont bother. They are mostly just a kids with computer games as their whole world :smile:
 

Scarf Ace

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVCM&B
3n4rd6.jpg

First time I properly browsed these forums in bloody ages and this is what I see

Anyway, I don't understand the rationale behind less combat depth. You'd think decently large, involved battles are at least 50% of what draws people to this sort of game, so deliberately limiting depth seems to me like a good way to sabotage player retention.
It's puzzled me in regards to Total War as well. Who actually likes 4 minute battles? Don't you want epic battles to actually feel like epic battles? Wouldn't you want them to last longer and give the player more options to make more interesting decisions and pull off cool tricks, to actually be a tactician?
The entire concept of short, minimal-depth battles is so utterly confusing. Why downplay one of the game's defining aspects?
 
Last edited:
I dont give a ---- what people want to call it. i just call it Bannerlord the game after Warband and all i can say is thank God TW made these games as no other dos.....
 

Pythagoras

Regular
Well, i'd call that a ****storm...
Which i think is good, because that's probably the only thing showing how bad TWs approach actually is. And why tf should we not express our disappointment to this? If they would have talked more to us it all would have come together in a constructive way, but this ignoring to listen and at the same time refusing to patch just indicates a certain amount of contempt - which this answer showed even more clearly. If Callums answer is really what they are planning to make out of M&B not only will they end as another Ubisoft or EA, but they will also destroy this genre, which they themselves created.

Maybe we should put that on steam, too, so a broader playerbase can show what they think of it?
 
Tbh, I don't see how it'll be appealing to people to make inf form a tetsudo which makes them move that slow and do it for most of the battles? If you want realism of that scale, you're asking for a total war mod, where you'll spend hours in battles. I'ld like more elements of strategy but I'm not actually rooting for turning the base game into a total war game in terms of battle elements. Combat groups needs to be implemented properly and that's pretty much it except A.I. improvement if they can do that. I don't see the problem with Callum's comment, ofc it should be RPG heavy and if they finally implement the combat groups properly with the option to create custom ones the problem will be resolved.

All I'm seeing is some random guy using superficial interpretation of his comment and tries to incite a community response? You might be thrilled of wasting hours of gameplay winning that one battle with minimal casulties but for most people it'll get boring very fast. I'ld rather finish a battle in 10 minutes and lose 30 men rathen than wasting an hour and lose 10. I'm happy that they got at least that one right.
 
Last edited:

Mikey

Sergeant at Arms
I'ld rather finish a battle in 10 minutes and lose 30 men rathen than wasting an hour and lose 10.

Which is fine, and why you could always just F1-F3 and ignore anything but the cluster**** in the centre which every battle in this series has devolved into since forever.
 

Mama Luke

Regular
I find it hilarious that people are legit scared that the devs will not reply because "you're mean to them".

Is this game developed by eight-year olds? Is that why it took so long, Taleworlds abducted a bunch of newborns in 2012 and had them develop the game? Actually that would explain so, so much.

This.
People are talking about devs like they're some sort of prey who'd get scared and run away if we make too much noise.
 

froggyluv

Master Knight
NW
Which is fine, and why you could always just F1-F3 and ignore anything but the cluster**** in the centre which every battle in this series has devolved into since forever.

Yeah its boggling that just because someone wants a games battle to be simplified for themselves they too require it be dumbed down for everyone else. FFS people you ALL HAVE F3/F6 -it wouldnt have to effect you in the slightest if alls you wanna do is Charge..
 

RavenMount

Recruit
Don't see a problem with what he said. This series has always been more of an action RPG and less of a strategy, that's why I played it.

Warband has the most time played on my steam list, so the people talking about how Warband was more strategic I gotta ask: what Warband were you playing? :roll:
 
Warband has the most time played on my steam list, so the people talking about how Warband was more strategic I gotta ask: what Warband were you playing?

baiting your enemies into sieging a castle full of fully kitted nords and slaying them one at a time on the ladder is peak strategy, no idea what you're talking about.
 

RavenMount

Recruit
baiting your enemies into sieging a castle full of fully kitted nords and slaying them one at a time on the ladder is peak strategy, no idea what you're talking about.

If that's what people call strategy I have one even better. Staying halfway down the ladder in a seige and headshot the defender one by one, taking town/castle with barely any loss. Even Zhuge Liang would be proud. :wink:
 
Yeah its boggling that just because someone wants a games battle to be simplified for themselves they too require it be dumbed down for everyone else. FFS people you ALL HAVE F3/F6 -it wouldnt have to effect you in the slightest if alls you wanna do is Charge..
We can have 500 vs 500 battle at most and you guys want to impose Total War BS for everyone. There's already a clear presentation that it can be done with mods, why are you pushing it to be in the base game as well? When there are combat groups it will already be better and if they improve the A.I. to fit that kind of gameplay, it's all that was promised. If you want to play Total War: Rome 2, go play it or ask for a mod, don't demand the devs to turn the base game into that ****.
 
If that's what people call strategy I have one even better. Staying halfway down the ladder in a seige and headshot the defender one by one, taking town/castle with barely any loss. Even Zhuge Liang would be proud.

Superb display, almost as genius as charging your troops at a group of forest bandits then riding your horse around the back of them to make them all shoot at your shield while your forces advance on them. Pretty sure thats chapter 3 in the art of war.
 

Pythagoras

Regular
We can have 500 vs 500 battle at most and you guys want to impose Total War BS for everyone. There's already a clear presentation that it can be done with mods, why are you pushing it to be in the base game as well? When there are combat groups it will already be better and if they improve the A.I. to fit that kind of gameplay, it's all that was promised. If you want to play Total War: Rome 2, go play it or ask for a mod, don't demand the devs to turn the base game into that ****.

Nobody imposes anything on you! You can still play as you please if we get proper tactical abilities!
And if you don't like proper strategy in a medieval game where you lead troops into battle as part of the core gameplay then go play CoD or Mordhau.
 
People are talking about devs like they're some sort of prey who'd get scared and run away if we make too much noise.
The other side of the coin is to let's not forget that the devs are human, and nobody likes to be told they suck at their job - or that what they are doing is stupid or worthless. There's a level of thoughtfulness and respect that should be used to offer feedback even if it is negative. There is also a certain irony in people demanding more communication (reasonable) then spitting chips when they get it (understandable in some case, but still not wise).

I don't like the game being dumbed down and I agree with the sentiment that it is being dumbed down too much. However, there is a very clear answer to the question:


"Where are these players that want the gamed dumbed down?".

The answer is: not posting on this forum.



The game sold millions. This forum's membership is 1/10th of that, the regular participants are 1/10th of that, and the regular posters an even smaller subset of that. We are Bannerlord's 1%'ers people. The majority of the players don't even have an account on these forums, and they play less than 10 hours a week.


The logic is that we 1%'ers who want a more heavy duty experience can and will download mods to get it. The average/majority player will not, thus the game should be tailored to that majority.


When you think about it, it's actually hard to argue against that logic. HOWEVER, tailoring to the majority doesn't need to marginalise hardcore players to the extent TW's intentions and actions seem to be doing.

eg. Banners. A complex version was implemented, but then the feature got dumbed down.

When a feature has been built which has more complexity than suitable for the lowest common denominator, you don't remove the complexity to the detriment of more engaged players, you improve the interface to it so that the lowest common denominator isn't overwhelmed, and others can still access the full feature. The depth of a great game is accessed along paths of discovery which allow players to venture down them as far as their interest and engagement level allows. Don't build a wall across the path to "protect" the casual gamer. Good design is more sophisticated than this, but at the very least in this example the game could default to the basic banners with a button to switch to "advanced mode".
 

Because

Sergeant
The other side of the coin is to let's not forget that the devs are human, and nobody likes to be told they suck at their job - or that what they are doing is stupid or worthless. There's a level of thoughtfulness and respect that should be used to offer feedback even if it is negative. There is also a certain irony in people demanding more communication (reasonable) then spitting chips when they get it (understandable in some case, but still not wise).

I don't like the game being dumbed down and I agree with the sentiment that it is being dumbed down too much. However, there is a very clear answer to the question:


"Where are these players that want the gamed dumbed down?".

The answer is: not posting on this forum.



The game sold millions. This forum's membership is 1/10th of that, the regular participants are 1/10th of that, and the regular posters an even smaller subset of that. We are Bannerlord's 1%'ers people. The majority of the players don't even have an account on these forums, and they play less than 10 hours a week.


The logic is that we 1%'ers who want a more heavy duty experience can and will download mods to get it. The average/majority player will not, thus the game should be tailored to that majority.


When you think about it, it's actually hard to argue against that logic. HOWEVER, tailoring to the majority doesn't need to marginalise hardcore players to the extent TW's intentions and actions seem to be doing.

eg. Banners. A complex version was implemented, but then the feature got dumbed down.

When a feature has been built which has more complexity than suitable for the lowest common denominator, you don't remove the complexity to the detriment of more engaged players, you improve the interface to it so that the lowest common denominator isn't overwhelmed, and others can still access the full feature. The depth of a great game is accessed along paths of discovery which allow players to venture down them as far as their interest and engagement level allows. Don't build a wall across the path to "protect" the casual gamer. Good design is more sophisticated than this, but at the very least in this example the game could default to the basic banners with a button to switch to "advanced mode".
Completely agree with all of the above, well said.
 

Chonokhan

Recruit
I'm quite alright with this. If I want to play Strategy battles, I'l play Total War Three Kingdoms. I do hope there will be more kingdom/business management though... I would have loved to see things from Assassin's Creed, where we could buy all kinds of businesses and assets, build a medieval criminal empire, assassin and thieves guilds, extortion, prostitution and slavery rackets... oh my, that would be glorious. You could pick to be an honourable noble, a vicious gang lord, a rothschild-like merchant... all while influencing the rise and fall of kingdoms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom