Reus' Rants & Critiques

Users who are viewing this thread

Reus

Sloppy Dabber
Global Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
There already is. It's the icons at the top.
Guess I'm blind, so I just went in-game to have a look, and you're correct. This actually brings up a new point where I don't agree with how they present it. Instead of having text or bigger icons at the top of the trading window, as you usually see in games, they're instead small icons at the top of the character window which isn't involved in the trading. I personally think that the current display is less intuitive, and if I had to make a guess at what those icons did without knowing, my first guess would definitely not be that they're for sorting the trading window. I would think they have something to do with my character since that's the window the icons are in. It's not a big deal, but this is a thread of all my rants and annoyances while playing the game, so I thought I'd point it out anyway.

Could be because some other merchant got there first. Just take the loss and look for your next route. Also don't go all in on a single trade good on a single run, it's better to diversify even if it means slightly less return.
Absolutely, but it seems to happen relatively frequently, and I've seen other players complain about the same thing. I rarely trade in the game, but in the few cases where I have, the prices have often been outdated by the time I reach my destination. At one point I literally bought a food item at one Battanian town because it said I could sell it for a good profit at the neighbouring Battanian town. When I got there, however, the prices were already very different from what I was initially told, and I could no longer turn a profit. This is also not a big issue, it just personally annoys me. I suppose you could argue that good traders take these things into account when trading.

Edit: Coincidentally, 25 minutes after writing this reply, my friend on a Discord call expressed how annoyed he is with this as well.

I don't know what you did differently, but my caravans make bank. It takes the initial 15k, and then it operates at a loss for a week or two. Once the caravan gets going, it makes an average of 500-600 Denars daily.
The problem is exactly that there is nothing you can do differently - that's why I call them slot machines. You pay 15.000 gold for a caravan, assign a companion, and pray that he manages to turn a profit versus an economy system that is mostly outside of the player's control. In my case, he hasn't managed to do so yet. The reason I even decided to buy a caravan in the first place was because someone else sent me a screenshot of his caravan making around 500 gold daily. I wasn't as lucky as him despite pressing the same button in the same way. There's nothing fun about wasting 15.000 gold + daily losses because you weren't lucky enough for your character to make a profit. I don't know how much the trading skill matters for your companion here, but the companion of the guy that sent me the screenshot didn't have a single point in trading, so I guess it's not very important.

How? I just stock up on a few hundred things of grain and I still have more than enough inventory thanks to all the mules and horses I have. Inventory space isn't a problem outside of the first few hours of play.
I deliberately used the word "slightly" here and then ended the point with "I don't think it's too bad but still something to look at." to stop people from thinking it was a major issue. While playing Bannerlord I simply found myself buying much more food more often than I did in Warband. As mentioned, it's not a big deal, and it may not be an issue at all, but I thought it was interesting enough to think about. This is probably also partially because Bannerlord now uses a weight system instead of the slot inventory system from the previous games. Individual food items probably also just lasted longer in Warband, and now you need to buy in larger quantity in order to feed the same amount of people.

This is because they no longer cheat and have to play by the same rules as us, meaning if their army gets wiped out, they have to start building another one. It's also why their armies have lots of lower tier troops.
Indeed. It's also why you can find the Battanian king fielding 0 troops and being taken prisoner by looters. I disagree with how it's done.

Personally haven't experienced this. Looters, and even most elite troops, are one hit kills with a polearm from horseback.
Sometimes, yeah, but not always. I'd imagine it's due to some new complex way that damage is calculated in the game, but I have had multiple looters survive my charge despite using a high tier long spear. If the man is practically naked, and I'm charging at him with a big spear on a horse, he should definitely be dying in every universe.
 
Last edited:

Trice.

Recruit
The OP should be printed out on a large format paper and bolted to a wall in TaleWorlds Entertainment HQ for everyone to see and read.

After 27 hours in-game, all I can say is that my playthrough does not feel meaningful in any way, shape or form. Every aspect of the game is somehow riddled with nonsensical design choices and bugs. With all the jank Warband had, it still did manage to instill a feeling of immersion and meaningfulness to my role in Calradia. Bannerlord is sorely lacking, even for an EA version. Feels like a demo.
 

Reus

Sloppy Dabber
Global Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
The restriction in Warband was that there would be one Marshal to lead the realm, and this worked as every main battle would be THE battle, the determination on whether or not you gain a huge upper hand or lose it. In Bannerlord, with multiple armies everywhere, no one battle ever feels like a victory, because as soon as its done, another army shows up with similar numbers. This is terrible when considering how there is no limitation on armies.
Very true. Sieges also stopped being special to me rather early on, as I was able to participate in the siege of several castles and towns only shortly after having joined the kingdom. When I joined the first siege, I was naturally very excited, but then I was already experiencing my second, third, and fourth sieges shortly after the first one. I believe that a siege should usually feel like the siege, just like a battle should feel like the battle, but they just seemed to happen so often that they became less special to me. A hostile kingdom was already snowballing in my game at that point, so it could be that the other kingdoms also got aggressive as a result, but we were taking, and losing, castles left and right. It likely also goes back to the thing about kingdoms having multiple armies running around at the same time, which allows them to conduct more sieges. I personally would prefer larger, more memorable sieges over the smaller, more frequent sieges that we seem to have now.

Let me know if you didn't have the same experience though.
 

Roger_Dabbit

Recruit
Unless there was a last minute change to faction AI/war making AI, I've no idea how the snowball effect makes it into the EA release. It occurs so quickly and compromises such an essential part of the entire game..
 

Syndan

Recruit
Unless there was a last minute change to faction AI/war making AI, I've no idea how the snowball effect makes it into the EA release. It occurs so quickly and compromises such an essential part of the entire game..

It's also important to mention that if games cannot last more than 50 years the inheritance system is rendered useless and will only ever come in effect with executed lords.
 

Roger_Dabbit

Recruit
It's also important to mention that if games cannot last more than 50 years the inheritance system is rendered useless and will only ever come in effect with executed lords.
The subforum mod pointed out it appeared to have, in fact, been a rather late change that created an issue right before EA launch. That happens, though it's disappointing when it happens to such a core feature. Hopefully it's fixed soon (within next few hotfix patches).

Took more time to read the OP in full and think about my current gameplay experience. I feel like the majority of things he pointed out is spot on. Also feel like they're all manageable/resolvable, so here's to hoping and thanks OP for consolidating these issues into one place!
 

Boomdales

Recruit
Amazing post!

My biggest gripe is the snowball. I can deal with crashes and bugs whatever. Its early access. Currently in both play throughs and the 60 hours currently invested, Battania has rolled over half the map. Now I am down to two castles in Vlandia and I cant do a thing because they have a 15k standing army. We were at war with the Southern Empire, for no good reason as we were not even near each other on the map, so I rode across the world to see if I could stir up some trouble. Couple in game days later I rode up to first city and found it sieged by Battania. Moved to second city, also sieged by Battania. Third and last city aaaaaaand seiged by Battania. All about 800 man armies.

oh Vlandia with my two castles and about 400 men just declared war on Battania. Seems good.
 

somaholiday

Regular
Just logged in just to say that I completely agree with everything on this list. I actually produced a similar, though not as detailed list, on the steam forum, but this is completely spot on. If all these issues could be addressed, we would be well on our way to a solid gameplay experience.
 
No? The AI still trades hits with you in the normal fashion. I hit you, I defend, I hit you etc. The only factor that might play in is the AI having better stats then you so they can swing faster.
lol i haven't played sp warband in a very long time like 6 years...

i got into a situation in tournament where i got stuck in 1vs 2 against 2 handers as a shielder.. and i could not sneak in a hit, like i used to in warband.. even with me "dancing" around i still get "spammed" bythe ai as they facehug you to death... this led me to the impression of ai just spam attacks...

now i've spent so much time in sp that i definitely now see your point, and i'm now unstoppable on melee fights in tourney lol..

but still IMO the ai needs a tweak where they would feint attacks every now and then.. and also that the ai would try to "dance" around you(similar to players in MP lol), instead of just trying to facehug you...
 

Gamelin

Regular
M&BWBNWVC
i got into a situation in tournament where i got stuck in 1vs 2 against 2 handers as a shielder.. and i could not sneak in a hit, like i used to in warband.. even with me "dancing" around i still get "spammed" bythe ai as they facehug you to death... this led me to the impression of ai just spam attacks...

1 vs 2 is very hard in SP tournaments early on mostly due to the AI having far better stats and armor then you, and you can't make up for it with skills as team damage is not enabled.

but still IMO the ai needs a tweak where they would feint attacks every now and then.. and also that the ai would try to "dance" around you(similar to players in MP lol), instead of just trying to facehug you...

As said, no team-damage leads to facehugging that are both frustrating and stupid. Don't think taleworlds will ever manage to make an AI that can deal with team-damage instead of just wildly swinging in group fights but we will see.
 

Reus

Sloppy Dabber
Global Moderator
M&BWBNWWF&SVC
1 vs 2 is very hard in SP tournaments early on mostly due to the AI having far better stats and armor then you, and you can't make up for it with skills as team damage is not enabled.
As long as it's a duel including a shield, I find this relatively manageable. I usually dance around them until one enemy is placed between me and the second enemy, so that I'm effectively only dueling one at a time. Without a shield it'll be difficult to get to that point though, since that would be a lot of directional parries to get right.

My main concern with tournaments currently is actually the fact that all participants wear their own armor. This particularly sucks when you get matched against some guy wearing heavy armor that reflects all of your sword swings. Every tournament participant should be wearing regular tournament gear, as was the case in Warband, and the levels / skills of each troop should be what sets them apart rather than armor.
 

Mppqlmd

Regular
I feel like Bannerlord in the state that it is, is more of a demo than EA.
I'm going to compare it to the 2 most well handled EA games i've played : Darkest Dungeon and Slay the Spire.

One week after the realease of EA Darkest Dungeon, there was 1 location for quest (the ruins) with 30% of the creatures that exist today IN THAT AREA (so 2.5% of the creatures available today in the entire game), half the playable classes available today, and most features just weren't there. The combat system was there, you had a few quests to do, a few characters to have, a few ennemies to fight. Over the course of years (until release, and even after release), the game multiplied its content by 700% (not an exageration).

Slay the spire started out with one playable character with a decent set of cards. The final boss of the game was not implemented, events were scarce, relics were scarce, ascension levels didn't exist if i recall correctly. Now it has 20 levels of difficulty, a final secret boss, a TON of events, relics, 4 playable characters with a crapload of cards. The game multiplied its content by 400%.

If an EA is handled well, it will MASSIVELY increase its content during the course of EA. The reason "EA" is a despized concept is because many games fail to grow that way. But if bannerlord is a successful EA (and considering the current patch rate, i'd say i'm optimistic), then it will be worth our money.
 

Limbojack

Veteran
I'm just posting in order to inflate the number of comments, hoping that it increases the chance of devs reading it,
 

Jiet

Recruit
I think the thing that breaks it for me is:
1) In the grim darkness of the far future (literally day 1) there is only war.
2) Something needs to be done about the bandit camps. Not only can you not autoresolve them, but they pop up literally everywhere. You squish one and suddenly a suicidal 1-man Mountain Bandit runs into the despawn area and constructs a new camp. It's infuriating!
 

ar181

Regular
I agree with most of this list. Here are my thoughts on a couple of things though. And I have probably played less than others, so excuse me if I got anything wrong.

First, you acknowledged in one section that things are going to be added to the game, but I think that applies to a lot of the things on your list. Some features are clearly in template form that will allow the developers to add to them quickly. Also for all we know, some of these features may be pretty far along development-wise, but are currently being held back for reasons that we are not aware.

For example, they clearly need to add a lot to the early game, but the templates: quests/crime/hideouts/tournaments/notables who aren't lords etc are there. I think adding to those features (and reducing the grind) will make it more entertaining. If they did a fix like making workshops cheaper it would make the early game completely pointless when it has the potential to be fun.

Also some of the stuff mentioned seems to relate more to the transparency of the game's functioning than the functioning itself. I'm not targeting op here, but often times people assume something is a bug when it doesn't work how they expect rather than figuring out why. In the past I've seen that leading to perfectly good features being removed from games or too much hand-holding being implemented to the point where games become too 'gamey' or boring mini-maxing exercises.

For example, caravan/workshop interaction is also clearly in progress, and more features are certainly needed, but I don't think the changes in yield are completely random. It does seems to help workshop profits if you sell the raw materials to the town itself. Also with relations with merchants, they usually increase when you help them and decrease when you help a rival. So it doesn't seem that random. Village income changes due to a number of factors that include it getting looted, villagers being attacked etc. These are things the player can affect.

A little more cues around this kind of thing might be helpful sure, but again I would hate to see this become a game where everything becomes over-explained and you know that doing x will result in y increase in z and everything just becomes about balancing the math. Or where they remove something interesting like the dynamic economy and make incomes more static because people think it's random when it isn't.

Also, romance would become incredibly boring if it was just a case of get to X skill level to woo Y person. Currently personalities do make a difference in romance. I succeeded in skill checks with one target and she said we have nothing in common because I chose options that went against her personality. Note that this isn't completed reflected in the skill percentages which as far as I can tell seem to reflect your skill etc. more, as high % options were sometimes incongruent with the personality of the target. If anything I wish they would remove the %'s and you had to deduce everything, but at least currently you do have to figure out some things. The encyclopedia helps with character locations and personalities.

Some of this stuff might also be helped as they add to the encyclopedia and provide better explanations of the underlying systems, but they are probably waiting until things are more complete to do this to avoid having to keep updating it.
 

Martin93

Recruit
Very true. Sieges also stopped being special to me rather early on, as I was able to participate in the siege of several castles and towns only shortly after having joined the kingdom. When I joined the first siege, I was naturally very excited, but then I was already experiencing my second, third, and fourth sieges shortly after the first one. I believe that a siege should usually feel like the siege, just like a battle should feel like the battle, but they just seemed to happen so often that they became less special to me. A hostile kingdom was already snowballing in my game at that point, so it could be that the other kingdoms also got aggressive as a result, but we were taking, and losing, castles left and right. It likely also goes back to the thing about kingdoms having multiple armies running around at the same time, which allows them to conduct more sieges. I personally would prefer larger, more memorable sieges over the smaller, more frequent sieges that we seem to have now.

Let me know if you didn't have the same experience though.
Same.
 

Marcery

Recruit
how are you going to complain about the fact that you fight in too many sieges? every siege feels the same because every siege involves the same thing, building siege equipment and storming the walls, If you decide to partake in 50 of them of course it’s going to stop being special but that’s your fault not the devs. Sure they can add a sneak mechanic or add more ways to starve out the enemy but at the end of the day, what makes the siege enjoyable is the context behind it. I only join major town sieges nowadays and there’s like one or two per war. Also how can you complain about this here when it’s literally the same in warband. Honestly people need to load up warband again and start a quick play through. Warband has so many flaws yet it’s one of my favorite games ever, when I load up warband and then play bannerlord, the improvement between the two games is clear as day. It’s not just graphical, virtually all the new systems introduced, (skill points and levelling up by actually using a skill, clan system, faction mechanics, seige mechanics, smithing, notables, trade system, combat AI, campaign Ai) are all promising improvements on warband systems.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I don't know how I didn't notice this thread before. These are probably the most sensible suggestions I have seen on this forum so far.
 
Top Bottom