Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine

[Badcritter]

I didn't pay for a "game engine," I paid for a game, and the product is advertised as one.

A stable, functional engine is a prerequisite for a game. So you did pay for a game engine much like you pay for the fries when you buy a value meal.

The difference is you don't actually need the fries. You DO need the game engine. Neglect it and the game is worthless.

We all want more features. The game NEEDS more features to meet people's expectations. But people's expectations on timing simply can't be met at this point - after 8 years of waiting, people are going to view Taleworlds as slow and behind where they should be no matter what they prioritise right now.

We will get to a good end result faster if the platform is kept reasonably stable than if further features are rushed. Minimal features for the next month won't make anyone happy, but cramming features into something that's only just stable will turn it into a buggy crash-fest and that will make people much less happy.

I'm not going to tell you or similarly minded people to be patient (even though it will be better for your state of mind if you can manage that), but I am going to request that you stop asking for features to be prioritised over stability and bug fixes. What you are asking for will turn the game into a train wreck in the short term, and cause it to take longer to get to an end state that is feature rich, stable and balanced.

 

[Sheepify]

A stable, functional engine is a prerequisite for a game. So you did pay for a game engine much like you pay for the fries when you buy a value meal.

I stand corrected.

"I didn't pay just for game engine with some lackluster placeholders thrown on top."

We all want more features. The game NEEDS more features to meet people's expectations. But people's expectations on timing simply can't be met at this point - after 8 years of waiting, people are going to view Taleworlds as slow and behind where they should be no matter what they prioritise right now.

We will get to a good end result faster if the platform is kept reasonably stable than if further features are rushed. Minimal features for the next month won't make anyone happy, but cramming features into something that's only just stable will turn it into a buggy crash-fest and that will make people much less happy.

Notice that I am nowhere demanding "I want new features nao, whaah." But not seeing anything genuinely new being worked on is not inspiring much confidence.

Especially since any expanded content will impact game balance anyway, so what's the point of doing balance overhauls now?

I'm not going to tell you or similarly minded people to be patient (even though it will be better for your state of mind if you can manage that), but I am going to request that you stop asking for features to be prioritised over stability and bug fixes. What you are asking for will turn the game into a train wreck in the short term, and cause it to take longer to get to an end state that is feature rich, stable and balanced.

Nobody logical is saying "new features" should take priority over stability or bug fixes, but the "priority list" is choke-full of things that go beyond "stability or bug fixes."

As an example, can we get more development of bandit groups, their behavior, and impact on the economy before the economy gets yet another balance pass? What's the point of tweaking all the variables affecting settlement prosperity when a change in bandit presence of looter group behavior will completely rework the interaction of the base elements?

And since we've had the "we can work on multiple things" thrown at us by Callum himself, why isn't there anything expanding on currently existing framework mentioned at all (as in genuine honest-to-Abe "content," not just additions/fixes of what's already there), but instead we get "balancing polish" in multiple places? Of things that, if are intended to be expanded upon, are going to get messed up balance-wise anyway?

It's like worrying about faction's strategic or combat performance before their stats, equipment (and stats of the equipment itself), and upkeep are finalized, much less strategic/tactical/individual combat AI is in place.

 

[Badcritter]

As an example, can we get more development of bandit groups, their behavior, and impact on the economy before the economy gets yet another balance pass? What's the point of tweaking all the variables affecting settlement prosperity when a change in bandit presence of looter group behavior will completely rework the interaction of the base elements?

That's a valid question. Taking into account the cost of the work helps to answer it. Tweaking settlement prosperity has very low cost, and can produce observable changes that are useful to know. Bandit behaviour changes are more expensive and complex. Both will need to happen, and tweaking prosperity will happen last. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with tweaking first as well - it is cheap so you can afford to do it more than once, and doing the first pass doesn't conflict with the valuable resources required to do the behaviour changes.

It's like worrying about faction's strategic or combat performance before their stats, equipment (and stats of the equipment itself), and upkeep are finalized, much less strategic/tactical/individual combat AI is in place.

I understand you're using an example to try and demonstrate a logical point and not necessarily complaining about this specific case, but ironically faction strategic performance is unrelated to stats and equipment. Autocalc doesn't take stats and equipment into account (only a unit's tier and whether or not they are mounted), and every sandbox battle is resolved with autocalc. Only the battles the player personally participates in care about stats and equipment. Having a healthy sandbox is important to the play experience... just wade through the threads about Sturgia for evidence of that.

So once again I'm not trying to undermine your logic, which is fundamentally sound. More trying to point out there is more to it than the base principle in practice.

 

[Sheepify]

That's a valid question. Taking into account the cost of the work helps to answer it. Tweaking settlement prosperity has very low cost, and can produce observable changes that are useful to know. Bandit behaviour changes are more expensive and complex. Both will need to happen, and tweaking prosperity will happen last. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with tweaking first as well - it is cheap so you can afford to do it more than once, and doing the first pass doesn't conflict with the valuable resources required to do the behaviour changes.

The more you focus on it, though, the less resources you have for the "big" things. Especially since, to the best of my knowledge, it's actually core programmers doing these tweaks - the same people who could be working on things that expand the gameplay content (and impact the balance) first, then do the balancing.

I understand you're using an example to try and demonstrate a logical point and not necessarily complaining about this specific case, but ironically faction strategic performance is unrelated to stats and equipment. Autocalc doesn't take stats and equipment into account (only a unit's tier and whether or not they are mounted), and every sandbox battle is resolved with autocalc.

Guilty.

After all the kvetching I've been doing about autocalc and it NOT being on the priority list, I should've known better

Appreciate the correction, and all the more the tone these were voiced in!

 

[Carabus]

The more you focus on it, though, the less resources you have for the "big" things. Especially since, to the best of my knowledge, it's actually core programmers doing these tweaks - the same people who could be working on things that expand the gameplay content (and impact the balance) first, then do the balancing.

Frequently it is the other way around, it is neglecting small fixes that costs more resources in the long term, than just outright fixing them would. Having basic bugs, that efect whole simulation, like towns starving themselves, or whatever, makes testing everything harder, including features that still are in development. It also decreases quality of feedback from any tests, both internal testing, and the gameplay feedback from players. And sometimes these fixes are simple number changes that programmer can do on a coffee break...

 

[Warlord123123]

It also would be good to think about how to make end game more interesting. Now once snow ball starts, everything else becomes rather dull.

Perhaps some large events like plague or roaming horde attack could be created.

Unique quest lines and individual goals for the kings wouldn't hurt as well.

Or just really strong diplomacy features, I mean, just copy logic from warhammer 2, they are essentially a better game from campaign map perspective, got a lot to learn from.

 

[Dudakov]

Thanks for the update. Excited for the new features. Please make the declare war/purpose peace button work in the kingdom management screen ?

 

[Warlord123123]

Thanks for the update. Excited for the new features. Please make the declare war/purpose peace button work in the kingdom management screen ?

There's a MOD that adds this feature. It's really a 30min job to MOD it. Devs could have added it long ago.

Hope 1.4 BETA will fix all the missing issues since modders speed is so much better than dev speed right now, which is mind boggling

 

[Stuntman Bob]

Any plans about players being able to turn off aging or at least aging death so we can play it like a Mount and Blade game? Devs still havent said anything even tho there are plenty of big threads on it.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/poll-should-players-be-able-to-disable-the-aging-mechanic.399250/

@Duh_TaleWorlds

 

[Herbiazors]

Aww yeee

 

[sifis172]

Hope 1.4 BETA will fix all the missing issues since modders speed is so much better than dev speed right now, which is mind boggling

Modding inreality isn't faster. i remember the testing versions of 1257ad. it took about 3 years
for the mod to become the thing the modder had in mind. in every small or big update we had
to start a new game. in the end it was a perfect running, and artistic achievement. but it passed
through a lot of stages. that's why all mods are listed as f.e 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and with numerous hotfixes.

 

[Warlord123123]

Modding inreality isn't faster. i remember the testing versions of 1257ad. it took about 3 years
for the mod to become the thing the modder had in mind. in every small or big update we had
to start a new game. in the end it was a perfect running, and artistic achievement. but it passed
through a lot of stages. that's why all mods are listed as f.e 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and with numerous hotfixes.

Depends on what you are building.
I was more referring to bug fixes and quality of life improvements.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Depends on what you are building.
I was more referring to bug fixes and quality of life improvements.

You like them now, wait a patch or two for your save to be broken by mods that are no longer compatible. Then you will probably have a better idea of why adding features to the game is more complex than making a mod for it .

 

[Faranox]

Very glad to see the Replay Editor listed there. I hope that it will be usable in Multiplayer as well as Singleplayer of course.

 

[Genghis Smenghis]

The features are nice, as I will only be playing in sandbox mode. There is no way to claim the lands of a destroyed clan to start a new kingdom. You have to be a vassal to another kingdom, and HOPE that they vote to let you keep the spoils of your hard earned fighting. The only way to get your own kingdom in the single player campaign is to grind away, build your clan rank, and take a castle on your own, which is impossible unless you weaken a faction, all by yourself, so they can't send an army after you.

 

[robed12]

as much as I love mods. Focus should be on polishing the game and getting it out off early access before modding tools comes out. ppl need to be finding as much bugs as possible or else 8 years of development hell and effort just for people to use it a launcher for their conversion mods, would be annoying being a dev. but hey thats just my opinion and it prob means jack to the average joe but hope this means something for the devs, i do appreciate the work devs put out. warband = childhood memories.

 

[Locklave]

You like them now, wait a patch or two for your save to be broken by mods that are no longer compatible. Then you will probably have a better idea of why adding features to the game is more complex than making a mod for it .

The mods break the save because it's not core to the game and changes are made by the Devs without consideration for those unknown elements. If the Devs made those exact same changes they'd be aware of them while adding future features avoiding the problem.

It's not more complex if it's the same thing. It's just if the devs know it exists.

 

[eddiemccandless]

The mods break the save because it's not core to the game and changes are made by the Devs without consideration for those unknown elements. If the Devs made those exact same changes they'd be aware of them while adding future features avoiding the problem.

It's not more complex if it's the same thing. It's just if the devs know it exists.

Right, and thus devs would have to include changes in their code that play well with the modification. Which would involve more work than making a mod as a standalone. You don't magically avoid problems when writing new features in, you have to figure out a way to do it that won't break the game and ensure code maintainability long term.

 

[Locklave]

Right, and thus devs would have to include changes in their code that play well with the modification. Which would involve more work than making a mod as a standalone. You don't magically avoid problems when writing new features in, you have to figure out a way to do it that won't break the game and ensure code maintainability long term.

How do you know it's more work then a stand alone mod? Seems like you are jumping to conclusions. If the devs said this someplace, I'll accept that. Do you have a link or something stating this is in fact the case?

I'd assume (I'm assuming here lol) that they'd have the tools and experience to do it faster and better. I'm not suggesting it's less complex but it seems counter intuitive that doing the same thing for them would be slower or harder. DLCs are handled as mods after all.

 

[eddiemccandless]

How do you know it's more work then a stand alone mod? Seems like you are jumping to conclusions. If the devs said this someplace, I'll accept that. Do you have a link or something stating this is in fact the case?

I'd assume (I'm assuming here lol) that they'd have the tools and experience to do it faster and better. I'm not suggesting it's less complex but it seems counter intuitive that doing the same thing for them would be slower or harder. DLCs are handled as mods after all.

Because I write software as part of my day job (I do research in academia, so I would not consider myself a "professional" in software development since I am more a jack of all trades, but I know enough about the process to tell you that it's not as simple as you think). I can't give you links from TW since they are not exactly forthcoming when it comes to the development process, but this one I think will give you a good idea of the kind of problems a software developer can face when adding features.

The thing is they would not do the same thing that a modder does. Modders do not have to worry about how their code plays with the rest of the game, they don't have to think about how their contribution fits with the overall software architecture of the game, and they don't have to worry about maintainability (if I make this change to the code, how will this affect further changes? will I still be able to change the other thing if I do this?). The more complicated a piece of software is, the more careful you have to be when you make changes. And typically you try to divide the code in individual, separate units so that you can change one without affecting the other, but again when the project becomes complicated it's not always easy.

Note that I am talking about mods that make significant changes here. If you just go and makes minor changes to some xml files then yes, that's easy either way (but honestly, that's something that anyone could do).