The Latest Major Patch Announcements - TaleWorlds Communication

Users who are viewing this thread

like posted before here.

i think there is much more in work that we know about. i mean they have more than 100 emplyees.
it cant be that 80% of people just working for better performance, map/UI creation and blancing stuff.
since i know they are working on different versions at the same time i am little excited to see what will come in the future
 
Given that this project would require many dozens of maps; each much larger then existing battle maps it has probably been in development for quite a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if this is part of the reason people have felt there has been a new content draught lately.

The scale of this update is actually mind boggling... effectively they have just created a whole new game world and added it into the game.

I'd also like to point out that DLSS is actually an amazing update that is highly underrated. Not many games have this functionality yet; I'm very surprised but overjoyed that Bannerlord got it so quickly.
Completely agree
 
I know you will defend anything but I will not let you mislead others.
This does not appear to be the case with what Taleworlds are proposing.
It is literally the case. Check their video again. Then check their proposed regions and check how small maps are. Then check why this won't work even with 147 maps. Do you feel it's enough to have small maps for huge regions? I don't.
A map is not just a map in this case; it is a large area with multiple places a battle map can be placed.
Check the map again. Also, there is literally 0 information about how spawning will work apart from that vague statement from Callum.
In effect what we are seeing is the entire Calradian map as a series of battle maps
:smile:
Which game has the better map; Skyrim or Redguard?
You mean Daggerfall? Redguard Morrowind and Skyrim all have static maps. Why? It's an open-world exploration game with static lore. Lore, yes. That's a thing. Perhaps you are not familiar with Bannerlord but games do have lore. You can generate that with plain procedurally generated manner at least, you need seeding. This is exactly what Total War and other games are using. Warband's procedurally map generation was bad - but it was far from being repetitive or inconsistent like Bannerlord. And I'm clear by their vague statements and how they split the regions that this inconsistency will go on even with this "effort"
It just seems strange to me that this forum complains about Taleworlds not adding enough content; then TW announce a huge content patch and people disregard it as being too much work....
First of all, people often complain because there is nothing to do in the game and they are not adding new features - not the content. Based on your logic, sheep textures are also content - so you can be happy. I have never seen anyone that says "Game is perfect, once they add more battle maps, I'm happy". Also, people think it's too much work because people are not 5 years old kids. Everyone is aware of the fact that TW is working extremely slowly and extremely sloppy. Every patch defeats other patch's purpose, creates more issues. Bugs are okay - that can happen in EA. But no features for ages, no content for ages? Even the ones that are suggested rejected because too "complex"?
After 1 year, everyone knows that it will take another 1 year for TW to create those 147 maps. And they won't be as good as much you think because their vision is limited. They won't create a battle map size version of the campaign map and divide it into battle maps.
 
They won't create a battle map size version of the campaign map and divide it into battle maps.
that is totally clear for everyone i think but its one huge think in the otherhand. will be cool if they just do it to test it and then decide to make more of that because as you said, there are some very large areas and some small and some makes absolutley no sense.
i agree.

i hope this is just another beta testing and yes, that is will take also a year or more to do because... i dont know what they do and what makes so hard to make new content. you know more..... unfortunetly.

but still excited to see some more maps. not that makes me totally happy, just a glimpse of something at least.
 
They won't create a battle map size version of the campaign map and divide it into battle maps.
Shhh, don't give them ideas.

If it's technically possible, but stupid, you bet people will demand it and some modder would try and fail to do it. Sky Banner Rimlord sounds nice though.
 
Warband Explorer mod is basically the whole campaign map broken into scenes (with loading times) but its still pretty neat. You can see real towns and castles in the distance. A great concept mod
 
Warband Explorer mod is basically the whole campaign map broken into scenes (with loading times) but its still pretty neat. You can see real towns and castles in the distance. A great concept mod
I think I saw it at the time. It's pure foolishness to misuse a game engine for something it's not intended. Just because it can be done, it doesn't mean it should be done.
f66.jpg
 
I know you will defend anything but I will not let you mislead others.

It is literally the case. Check their video again. Then check their proposed regions and check how small maps are. Then check why this won't work even with 147 maps. Do you feel it's enough to have small maps for huge regions? I don't.

Check the map again. Also, there is literally 0 information about how spawning will work apart from that vague statement from Callum.

:smile:

You mean Daggerfall? Redguard Morrowind and Skyrim all have static maps. Why? It's an open-world exploration game with static lore. Lore, yes. That's a thing. Perhaps you are not familiar with Bannerlord but games do have lore. You can generate that with plain procedurally generated manner at least, you need seeding. This is exactly what Total War and other games are using. Warband's procedurally map generation was bad - but it was far from being repetitive or inconsistent like Bannerlord. And I'm clear by their vague statements and how they split the regions that this inconsistency will go on even with this "effort"

First of all, people often complain because there is nothing to do in the game and they are not adding new features - not the content. Based on your logic, sheep textures are also content - so you can be happy. I have never seen anyone that says "Game is perfect, once they add more battle maps, I'm happy". Also, people think it's too much work because people are not 5 years old kids. Everyone is aware of the fact that TW is working extremely slowly and extremely sloppy. Every patch defeats other patch's purpose, creates more issues. Bugs are okay - that can happen in EA. But no features for ages, no content for ages? Even the ones that are suggested rejected because too "complex"?
After 1 year, everyone knows that it will take another 1 year for TW to create those 147 maps. And they won't be as good as much you think because their vision is limited. They won't create a battle map size version of the campaign map and divide it into battle maps.
I know you will critise anything but I will not lead you mislead others. :wink:

First of all. You know how crazy it sounds to be saying "It's only 147 maps!" How many maps do you want in the game? haha. To put this in comparison - Warhammer Total War 2 has a similar amount of maps after 2 main titles and 20 something DLC's. And no total war games haven't used procedural generation since Rome 2 (maybe Atilla I missed that).

Next let's take a look at this map we had previewed shall we. Because of the way the battle terrain system works; we know that every feature on the campaign map must be replicated to some extent on the tactical map. So let us compare the image of the battlefield to the region size (which should in theory be the full battle map size)

pKuLHNu.jpg


Here is where the battle takes place; we can see the bridges. Here is the tactical map;


5PrHVk2.jpg


As we can see this pretty well represents the part of the map that is being contested. However that is not the entirety of the map. Here is the region!

OsYWJfF.jpg


The orange square represents the part of the map we saw. As you can see there is a forest to the north and mountains to the south; none of which are shown in that image. Suffice to say the image we got was only part of the region; maybe about 1/3rd of this region. And this is one of the medium sized regions;

tCjbMkn.jpg


Suffice to say some of these battle maps will be huge; and even the one we saw in the image was much larger then it appears; we can sort of see this in the video -

R5LqQHF.png


There is our northern forest (or possibly this is the forest to the south) - in the distance. These maps are going to be very big.

Next thing. This system only works if every single map is in place; which means it has to be released at one time as one huge update. TW just announced this system in their development update video. These videos are not for long term goals; they are for features due to be released shortly. We saw this recently with rebellions and spear bracing from the last development update.



So what does this mean? It means Taleworlds have already done the majority of the maps and have probably been working on this for months. They are only showing us now because it is due release.

Summary

- These maps are much larger then you have suggested.
- 147 large maps is more then enough for a game of this scale.
- The total war series you used as an example do not use procedurally generated maps anymore.
- The image we saw only showed part of the map not its entirety.
- This feature (in its entirety) is due shortly.

Now I know you have a lot of gripes about bannerlord to bring to this discussion; but let's keep this on topic about the maps. I'm not trying to tell you that bannerlord is perfect now; only that this is a considerable feature and you are wrong to dismiss it out of hand. Which part of my above summary do you not agree with and why?

P.S I don't want to argue with you. It's not worth it - it's just a game. I've let this forum rile me up far too many times. So please keep it civil (as we have done so far).
 
Last edited:
You make too many unwarranted optimistic assumptions, as in your previous post: about map size, their quality in faithfully representing the region terrain, and most baffling of all, that the maps are almost done. There's absolutely no evidence for any of this and some would say Taleworlds previous performance suggests the opposite.
Also, a small correction - partial regional mapping would work without problem, regions that don't have their maps ready would use the current system. You can't use this as evidence that they must be almost done, that's really, really optimistic to the point of delusion.
Until we get more statements and evidence from Taleworlds on this, we can realistically assume that the minimum possible work has been done so far, because their statements are still meant to hype the product while avoiding unpleasant details.
 
You make too many unwarranted optimistic assumptions, as in your previous post: about map size, their quality in faithfully representing the region terrain, and most baffling of all, that the maps are almost done. There's absolutely no evidence for any of this and some would say Taleworlds previous performance suggests the opposite.
Also, a small correction - partial regional mapping would work without problem, regions that don't have their maps ready would use the current system. You can't use this as evidence that they must be almost done, that's really, really optimistic to the point of delusion.
Until we get more statements and evidence from Taleworlds on this, we can realistically assume that the minimum possible work has been done so far, because their statements are still meant to hype the product while avoiding unpleasant details.
However I could equally say you are being unreasonably pessimistic could I not? It is safe to assume Taleworlds would not be revealing this feature unless they had something to show for it shortly. This has been the case of all their prior video dev-blogs in the current series they have done.

In addition we can see the regions have already been placed in game. Sure you are correct some regions may only be placeholder maps; but this would defeat the point in the system.

Suffice to say taleworlds have told us we will get it; and told us we will get it soon. Perhaps I am being optimistic; but it is unfair to critise taleworlds for not implementing this feature fully; when we have no evidence to suggest they won't. They have told me I will get 'X'. I am going to believe it (naively or otherwise) until we are certain we won't be getting 'x'.
 
Last edited:
If t
However I could equally say you are being unreasonably pessimistic could I not? It is safe to assume Taleworlds would not be revealing this feature unless they had something to show for it shortly. This has been the case of all their prior dev-blogs.
They would show something all right. Until they say what that something is (details, numbers) and when it will be done, we simply don't know.
We do know that company PR should not be interpreted with the best possible meaning.
I could vividly imagine how they announced the feature the moment they had some visuals ready. And not that they are some kind of a Santa that worked in secret to surprise you with an unexpectedly great gift.
In addition we can see the regions have already been placed in game. Sure you are correct some regions may only be placeholder maps; but this would defeat the point in the system.
No, it's fine to show work in progress and even release partial features, that's what this whole EA is about. Until they say all of the maps will be done by some date you can't assume they will actually do this in the near future.
Suffice to say taleworlds have told us we will get it; and told us we will get it soon. Perhaps I am being optimistic; but it is unfair to critise taleworlds for not implementing this feature fully; when we have no evidence to suggest they won't. They have told me I will get 'X'. I am going to believe it (naively or otherwise) until we are certain we won't be getting 'x'.
We are not criticizing TW for not doing the maps by yesterday. We are just sceptical over the time they'll need to complete the feature and the possible gameplay problems that would arise and may or may not be addressed by TW.
If they told you at some point that you will get X soon, it probably means you will get x Soon(tm). That's just the nature of PR and, in particular, Taleworlds' brand of PR.
 
Summary

- These maps are much larger then you have suggested.
- 147 large maps is more then enough for a game of this scale.
- The total war series you used as an example do not use procedurally generated maps anymore.
- The image we saw only showed part of the map not its entirety.
- This feature (in its entirety) is due shortly.

As I said some posts ago, the idea seems good... now let's see the implementation, both of you have valid arguments.I guess it is time to wait and check what they provide.
 
If t

They would show something all right. Until they say what that something is (details, numbers) and when it will be done, we simply don't know.
We do know that company PR should not be interpreted with the best possible meaning.
I could vividly imagine how they announced the feature the moment they had some visuals ready. And not that they are some kind of a Santa that worked in secret to surprise you with an unexpectedly great gift.

No, it's fine to show work in progress and even release partial features, that's what this whole EA is about. Until they say all of the maps will be done by some date you can't assume they will actually do this in the near future.

We are not criticizing TW for not doing the maps by yesterday. We are just sceptical over the time they'll need to complete the feature and the possible gameplay problems that would arise and may or may not be addressed by TW.
If they told you at some point that you will get X soon, it probably means you will get x Soon(tm). That's just the nature of PR and, in particular, Taleworlds' brand of PR.
As I said some posts ago, the idea seems good... now let's see the implementation, both of you have valid arguments.I guess it is time to wait and check what they provide.
As a_ver_est says we are pointlessly arguing hypotheticals. I am being optimistic; you are being pessimistic (but not without fair reason). We will see what happens.
 
As a_ver_est says we are pointlessly arguing hypotheticals. I am being optimistic; you are being pessimistic (but not without fair reason). We will see what happens.
Agreed, but I have a ready "I told you so" reply illustrated with various Soon memes. :smile:
 
A plea to Taleworlds ,

As I woke up this morning, I watched the latest Development Diary and I was really pleasantly surprised. But should it have been such a surprise?

No, it shouldn't.
I'm with you. It would be great if they posted an update every Friday about what they worked on that week. Even if it failed. A simple post that no one could reply to with 5 or so bullet points stating what they did.
 
And no total war games haven't used procedural generation since Rome 2 (maybe Atilla I missed that).
Since Rome II and Atilla, there aren't any historical Total War apart from Troy and Troy, Rome II, Atilla, Rome I Total War is using procedurally generated maps. It's seeded from the campaign map coordinate tiles and this is exactly why you are seeing 1-1 identical copy. They are not all hand-crafted. You have a major misunderstanding about procedurally generated maps work. Procedurally generated maps don't mean random maps with random data.
You know how crazy it sounds to be saying "It's only 147 maps!" How many maps do you want in the game? haha
Haha so funny indeed.
But if you read what I said - I'm not saying " it's only 147 maps " I'm saying even with 147 maps they can't achieve what they can achieve with seed-based procedurally maps. They are pushing for more meaningless effort because some random designer thought it would be good to have 5 maps for the entire game and then they realized that people are sick of this.
the region size (which should in theory be the full battle map size)

pKuLHNu.jpg


Here is where the battle takes place; we can see the bridges. Here is the tactical map;


5PrHVk2.jpg
Sorry but this is sad level of optimism to think that this is an exact representation and this map isn't small. Let me give you an example, from that 34 people Sturgian caravan to battle area, you need to spend at least 4-5 game hours. And how much time do you think it will spend in battle? 2 seconds? Will your unit end up in that location when battle ends? No. So.. something is not good, right? You are trying to represent 100km2 area in 1km2. That obviously won't work. That's also an issue because you will have the same exact battle over and over until you go out of area 47 - and area 47 is huge. Around 1/25 of entire Calradia.
You can literally fill all the lords in the game ( from all factions ) in that triangular-ish area. If this is 1-1 representation for you, sure go ahead, have fun.
These maps are going to be very big.
:smile:
Summary

- These maps are much larger then you have suggested. - Wishful thinking with no base
- 147 large maps is more then enough for a game of this scale. - Your personal opinion. Not having handmade maps would make more sense.
- The total war series you used as an example do not use procedurally generated maps anymore. - You are wrong.
- The image we saw only showed part of the map not its entirety. - It shows the entire region. They are squeezing it.
- This feature (in its entirety) is due shortly. - Wishful thinking
Fixed for you.


Again you are missing the point. This is better than random maps that they are using right now - but it's not good enough. Whoever decided those regions should take a vacation. Because they are nothing but confusing regions for players. A horrible decision in terms of game design. Perhaps you can see this map and expect which region to come up - but the majority of players won't. If you slice each region into the more-or-less same size, then you can at least create consistency and would mislead players less.
And if you create more regions - it means more authentic maps so that you don't have to squeeze a huge region into a small map. But Taleworlds cannot simply make it with this pace. They won't even make 147 maps in any reasonable time. You definitely won't see 147 maps in the next release
 
Back
Top Bottom