What we have in Bannerlord pre-release dev diaries but not in game by now

Currently viewing this thread:

Lusitani 5th Empire

Sergeant at Arms
The same applies to this version of "feedback before release". There is a significant risk that substantial parts of the feature will change until the releasable prototype is done, at which point there's very little time before it's actually given to the players. We don't want to build false expectations or otherwise mislead players about it.
This is a bad argument to justify that decision, either this is not the main reason or you (the team) are not considering the real facts here.
Every such discussion thread with @mexxico has had only a positive tempering effect on people's expectations.
This should be enough evidence to change any fears devs might have in discussing with the community. It's only a positive relation.

"We don't want to build false expectations or otherwise mislead players about it" - not providing accurate expectations of what might come next is significantly worse that providing controlled releases of information to the public. Not saying anything at all will only produce more false expectations than if you inform people about your plans.
What's the worse that can happen? Some people making threads saying you lied when you really didn't
What positive can happen? Having players giving better informed suggestions; having truly interested people having accurate expectations; having players providing data to solve bugs and problems; raising players interest and productive interactions; providing the features players want; acceleration the game development; reducing your work...
You would still have full control of what parts you want to release to the public as well as the time it gets released.

Please reconsider your (the team's) position on this subject.
Exactly! 👇
This is problematic too, threads usually grow because of controversy and not popularity. You can have a very good suggestion, 10 people reply and agree with it and you are done. There is no discussion because everyone agrees with the proposal. You can also have a very controversial topic, 10 people reply with mixed feelings but 2-3 get into circular arguments for several pages. That's how you end up with +100 reply threads most of the time...
 

Bloc

Duke
WB
I must mention though, ever since Dejan joined the team, i got a great help in the Suggestions forum, as he is daily sifting through it and responding to even 0 replies threads if he thinks that is something that aligns with the team's vision (a thing us outside of TW can't know), and forwards it to the developers of the area in question.
Yes, I do agree. And that's exactly why I'm trying to push for this type of transparency. I know @Dejan is actively checking all the thing as much as he can do. Frankly speaking, if I thought that they aren't checking anything at all, then I wouldn't make the suggestion, because why bother right? But if we can somehow shape that suggestion threads with help of feedback loop from TW - I think it would be way better for everyone. At least that would leave out some question marks on the heads. Like "What might be added next?". "What will be the game look like after EA/Release/Full stop" etc. If, as a player, I see that there are 20 suggestions marked as "Cool, we gonna take a look at it" I would at least know for sure that they spent some time on that. It can even be something like a public Trello page where people can have an overview.
As i've been updating the MP and SP top Suggestions for a long time, i can say to you, without any doubt, that even having these lists don't prevent many users duplicating the suggestions, as if they aren't even reading the Top Suggestions thread.
Eh on that part, obviously you dealt with more threads, so I will take your word for that. Although it should at least more obvious for others who have something on their mind and wants to check what has been suggested. To be honest, I do have a lot ideas/suggestions about the game as well, but usually either I don't want to spend my time presenting that because it won't get attention from devs or sometimes it's a small suggestion and doesn't feel like it worths a whole new thread for it. But if people see that this stuff is working and actually getting attention from Devs one way or another, then they can keep that feedback loop alive.
( I'm obviously talking about logical suggestions, because, well since from the beginning of M&B Turkish players consistently asked for Ottoman Empire to be added as a faction. So what I'm saying isn't something like that ofc :smile: )

And not to derail from the actual post, I think best way to give a kickoff this transparency would be a simple statement about the OP's research. To see what is actually discarded for good and what is still under consideration or some corners of their old backlog.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
This is a bad argument to justify that decision, either this is not the main reason or you (the team) are not considering the real facts here.

This should be enough evidence to change any fears devs might have in discussing with the community. It's only a positive relation.

"We don't want to build false expectations or otherwise mislead players about it" - not providing accurate expectations of what might come next is significantly worse that providing controlled releases of information to the public. Not saying anything at all will only produce more false expectations than if you inform people about your plans.
What's the worse that can happen? Some people making threads saying you lied when you really didn't
What positive can happen? Having players giving better informed suggestions; having truly interested people having accurate expectations; having players providing data to solve bugs and problems; raising players interest and productive interactions; providing the features players want; acceleration the game development; reducing your work...
You would still have full control of what parts you want to release to the public as well as the time it gets released.

Please reconsider your (the team's) position on this subject.
Exactly! 👇

Well said!
0P681Kp.gif


[...] To be honest, I do have a lot ideas/suggestions about the game as well, but usually either I don't want to spend my time presenting that because it won't get attention from devs or sometimes it's a small suggestion and doesn't feel like it worths a whole new thread for it. [...]

Well, you should carry it out, mate.

There are people who post "I wAnT mOaR vIkInGs" or "tHeRe ArE tOo MaNy TrEeS oN tHe BaTtLeFiElD", I'm pretty sure you have better arguments/ideas that can become full debates where people are encouraged to brainstorm - input and thus permeate through the devs in a way :wink:.
 
This is a bad argument to justify that decision, either this is not the main reason or you (the team) are not considering the real facts here.

This should be enough evidence to change any fears devs might have in discussing with the community. It's only a positive relation.

"We don't want to build false expectations or otherwise mislead players about it" - not providing accurate expectations of what might come next is significantly worse that providing controlled releases of information to the public. Not saying anything at all will only produce more false expectations than if you inform people about your plans.
What's the worse that can happen? Some people making threads saying you lied when you really didn't
What positive can happen? Having players giving better informed suggestions; having truly interested people having accurate expectations; having players providing data to solve bugs and problems; raising players interest and productive interactions; providing the features players want; acceleration the game development; reducing your work...
You would still have full control of what parts you want to release to the public as well as the time it gets released.

Please reconsider your (the team's) position on this subject.
Exactly! 👇
They already built false expectations with the development diaries over many years, so I'd say the first thing they should do is to correct these false expectations by explaining why or if certain features are no longer on the table. I am even happy with a 'we haven't decided yet about feature x' which is still better than complete silence.
When @Dejan says they don't want to build false expectations he misses the fact that it's precisely what they did over the last years.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
They already built false expectations with the development diaries over many years, so I'd say the first thing they should do is to correct these false expectations by explaining why or if certain features are no longer on the table. I am even happy with a 'we haven't decided yet about feature x' which is still better than complete silence.
When @Dejan says they don't want to build false expectations he misses the fact that it's precisely what they did over the last years.

Ha - this! Theres no way to know but i would guess that they are aware of this yet are somewhat frozen as probably teams still have these features somewhere on their To-Do lists but theres also the very real chance that the committee who decides will axe certain of them if they dont believe they are worthwhile/too troublesome/conflict with other code etc etc...So thats why they dont relay this information while still in flux. Again im just guessing
 

vonbalt

Knight
WBNWVCM&B
They already built false expectations with the development diaries over many years, so I'd say the first thing they should do is to correct these false expectations by explaining why or if certain features are no longer on the table. I am even happy with a 'we haven't decided yet about feature x' which is still better than complete silence.
When @Dejan says they don't want to build false expectations he misses the fact that it's precisely what they did over the last years.
Well to play devil's advocate they did explain why they removed/reworked certain features, it mostly boils down to "we believe it would be too complicated for the AI and/or the players so we opted for a simplified version"
 
Well to play devil's advocate they did explain why they removed/reworked certain features, it mostly boils down to "we believe it would be too complicated for the AI and/or the players so we opted for a simplified version"
Yes, I think village upgrades are a good example. First they shared their concept. When it turned out it doesn't work they told us that the concept is no longer accurate. Now mexxico told us what they can't do and what they can do, which enables us to give the right feedback.
Sure, some people are still disappointed and would prefer a more complex mechanic. But the vast majority of the discussion is more constructive than deconstructive.
Now, in my opinion the same should be done about the other announced but missing mechanics. Sadly mexxico is only one guy.
 
But at the same time, being perma-raided and losing fiefs does hurt factions economically, it is just -- after awhile -- things become a one-way street with the losing factions losing harder and the winning factions being untouchable.
So I guess my initial statement is not clear enough. Yes, war do have negative effect on lord's economy, but meanwhile war also has positive effect. The problem here is power of positive effect is overwhelming negative effect, so the 'overall' effect of war on wining lord's is not negative, or in another notation, let E represent economic situation of wining lords, △E=(earning from war) - (loss from war) >> 0. Simple example/comparision: How many Dinar can a village contribute to a lord in a week? At most two to three hundred, but how many Dinars a lord can earn from a single wining battle? At least two to three thousands.

ALSO: a quest for caravan escort / ambush should remove a bandit hideout nearby (since you are destroying such a large bandit party). Maybe... Bandits are so annoying.
That's how I understand the quest system they described in the dev diaries, sadly they did not implement this way currently.

Well...when talking to a clan leader you are at war with you can try to erode his loyalty to his liege via persuation. If you are successful, a barter window will open, where you can bribe him to joining your faction. Frankly - the costs of that are that absurd, it never worked for me. But I have seen it. Also, when looking for a wife/husband you will have to brave a persuation round instead of reciting poems. After that, you will need to "buy" your spouse via barter menu at the clan head.
For the first part I have never gone through the persuation step successfully :sad: As for the marrige part, don't know to state it, but it is not the way I expect the 'persuation -> barter' work

What about the gang mechanics shown to us 4 years ago in videos ? I have said this before in other threads, but why is TW so silent about it?
This part sounds like something bound to politics, like the repleshiment of local celebrities. Based on current game version, this looks far from what we have.
 
Here is a chart I made for you mate, insert your feature and analyze it
z2hjj.png

A personal guess for this, TW is not compatible of writing an AI that can accomadate complicated game systems.

So there are 2 options.

1. It was really implemented
2. It is a planned feature and never really implemented.
It depends, based on those demo videos, we can see there are features that has actually been implemented but discarded later. A closer look is required for those not included in demo.

Btw why did TW build their own engine again? Seems more of a pain than a gain to me.
I'd like to say the reason is that rather than merely a game, M&B is more close to an engine itself. At least for finished Warband.

Excuse my bitterness but I think most of these were discarded by a coward that ruined the game by making it more "simple"
I agree; but I guess the inner reson is TW is not capable of design a AI algorithm that can accomdate all this systems.
 
Just go the Nexus and sort by popular or most downloaded to see what the community really wants, it's all quality of life or more complex system mods like cultured starts (multiple initial starts), calradia at war (more immersion and spawn types, many more bandits and minor factions), bear my banner (banners in battle), realistic battles (improve armor effectiveness and make battles more tactical), party AI overhaul and commands (more control over your parties and making armies target bordering fiefs in war) etc etc etc
Exactly.

What really bothers me is when we get an "explanation" that states a feature is not going to be implemented because it would make the game complex or harder, this is really an insult to our intelligence on the levels of Diablo 4's "We are going to change item stats to just attack and defense so the players can understand that an item is an upgrade". What are we? Zoo monkeys that go by all day throwing **** at people and being amused by the chaos we created?
Personally speaking, when reading about those 'explanation', I felt more like TW cant handle NPC behavour staff in complicated scenario, both behaving as expected or optimize runtime complexity.

I will try to make a proper design something like increasing number of projects especially new projects effecting bounded villages (fe. saving them to be raided consequently) - it should be easy to implement to get approved - for making things better for villages / castles and go with that suggestion. We can discuss it in forum too. Then we will see what will be happened.
That sounds easier to implement with what we currently have, but I still wonder about how to achieve 'A vassal of vassal is not my vassal' if village is simply attachment of castle/city, or this classical saying is out of consideration?

mexxico's design would have been great but I do like the way it is now with the villages being bound settlements. Upgrading them to castles would be too much but I don't see why they can't still have building slots and even the possibility of building some sort of simpler fortification around them - I suppose that would mean creating a lot of new scenes.
Agree, at least good features from Warband is not supposed to be scraped. About the new scenes... we don't have varied scenes bound to city/castle settlement development levels, neither.
 
Agree, at least good features from Warband is not supposed to be scraped. About the new scenes... we don't have varied scenes bound to city/castle settlement development levels, neither.
We actually do. There are three wall building levels for cities and castles. The models on the campaign map, the walls/castle keeps in the battle scenes, and the 'lords hall' scenes change with each wall upgrade.
 
and the fiefs that we do receive are not upgradable. I think early-game warband was much more enjoyable because of this aspect, becoming a minor lord (or in the case of Bannerlord, a minor clan), and defending your fief, upgrading + improving relations with it. In my opinion it really gave a lot of scale to the world of Calradia, you work your way up and get one measly fief and a lot of your gameplay centered around it in early-midgame warband.
Agree, currently when I playing Bannerlord everything is done in clan level, not on personal level as an individual lord.

It's funny that between this game and Cyberpunk 2077, I either pre ordered or made a 1st day purchase based on the promises of features for the games. And I can't remember any other time I've been greatly disappointed by what a game under-delivered.
Looks like different issues from my perspective. I didn't believe in most of promises about 2077 since most of those promises are something CDPR have never achieved or performed terribly before in the Witcher series; But for Bannerlord, it misses many desired good features existed in Warband and in pre-release demo.

We also haven't had a case where feedback wasn't included because it wasn't received prior to the feature going to the Beta branch - obviously, this doesn't concern design decisions made long before we went into early access.
That is sad, things might go completely another way if we had the chance.
 

Nordous

Sergeant Knight
Thanks for the great compilation and analisis, it's a great read. I really hope this helps TW with staying on track with their features and I also hope they will catch up instead of simlifying the game.
 
Sure, some people are still disappointed and would prefer a more complex mechanic. But the vast majority of the discussion is more constructive than deconstructive.
I'm one of those who prefer a more complex mechanic. A game is not supposed to be super complicated to actually simulate exactly how the world works, but the game is also not supposed to be over-simplified so that it even can't simulate some

The other thing is that people suggesting now mostly in fact do get the answers by Dejan on their suggestions with "declined because of..., already planned, forwarded to developers" etc, there is only a lack of official list that would compile, sort and update all of them them in an organized and official manner.
I have posted a few long suggestion threads myself but have not got any feedback even if I have included question like "am I posting at the correct subforum" and "I know the thread is super long, can someone teaches me how to correcly seperate it into several shorter threads" :sad:

We actually do. There are three wall building levels for cities and castles. The models on the campaign map, the walls/castle keeps in the battle scenes, and the 'lords hall' scenes change with each wall upgrade.
Whoops, forgot that. What I'm thinking about is something like every building project will have an impact on scene, but that's obviously too complicated.
 

Grizvill08

Recruit
these were all promesise for full realse we are still in ea so hopefully they will be add in the feuter. I dont think it will be ull realsed in march 2021 more like late summer 2021
 
Anyone remember one of the dev diaries talking about wandering NPC parties that act like your own? With their own objectives etc. I think this was going to be different than minor parties.
 
Whoops, forgot that. What I'm thinking about is something like every building project will have an impact on scene, but that's obviously too complicated.
That would be really cool but, as I understand it, because of the way they design scenes they'd have to completely rebuild the whole city scene to add a building, and rebuild it again for each level of that building, and again for every combination of building and their respective levels, and again for each city wall level, then make pathfinding etc. work for all of those variations... I don't really understand why it's done that way, perhaps I'm totally wrong, I hope I am.

Anyone remember one of the dev diaries talking about wandering NPC parties that act like your own? With their own objectives etc. I think this was going to be different than minor parties.
Stop!
My heart drops every time I read about these dev diaries lol

edit-(I'm used to another forum which merges double posts)
 

Dreed89

Sergeant
Very good effort for compiling all of this, thanks to OP.

I hope it will get the attention of TW managers and they will go over them one by one.

They should either acknowledge the dropped features, accept the fault caused by misinformation, and provide some compensation by pointing at substitude features, or provide information about whether they will ever be implemented.
 
Top Bottom