Why 1.5.10 is the absolute worst version

Users who are viewing this thread

Can you explain why? I'm curious, and maybe it's the way Ananda went about it that didn't enlighten me.
Here's a recent break down of why the old leveling system felt unfair to players. I cover other issues besides just the level up penalty, but it shows the overall of why that part is unneeded and frustrating IMO.
I just want to make sure anyone reading this knows this is only about the OLD version, not about 1.5.10 beta
*
What I don't like also is the needles layers of non-beneficial complexity in the leveling system. Let me start with what's good and then show the layers where it goes wrongs.

1: You use a skill in game and it raises, giving an advantage and lettings you choose perks and it takes much longer to raise higher as it levels.
^THIS is a complete char-dev system. This alone is enough. Your choices and time in game = your character's advantage. If you wanna bust your bunz trying to max out many things before you character dies, that's your business in a single player game. Really, this is all they need.


2: You must spec into skill via FP and attributes to learn them. More = faster learning
Okay sounds fair.....

3: You must use 5fp and +8 (10)attributes to reach the highest skill caps
WHAT? Now there's skill caps? Why not just faster and slower learning, why have hard caps?

4: You gain +1 attribute every 4th level
That's gonna take a lot levels to max out the things I want! But I guess it's a looooooong game.....

5: Every level up of character reduces you learning speed for all skills.
What? Why? Why am I punished for leveling up? I guess it's to encourage min/maxing and only raising the skill I really want

6: Exp to level up is the same even if you don't invests into skill, you level up just as fast from their actions, no min/max allowed
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw ****, this is the most trolly obnoxious char dev system I've ever seen!
*
Here's a link to that topic with many other options about it.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...stem-still-unenjoyable-and-unbalanced.438163/

Basically, for most players they will have to defeat many many enemies with thier character and thus gain lots of level up raw exp, even if they don't invest FP and attribute into combat skills or have reached the limits of those skill. This means the "level up= learning down" would prevent them from learning the skills they had invested points into, simply because they "played the game" and were active in combat.

Further more, you have said twice that you think a character will reach higher levels or obtain more attributes/fp because of the removal of the leveling punishment, this is just not true because the removal of "skill exp penalties based on character level" in no way effect the gaining of raw exp used for gaining main levels (which give fp and attributes).

I'm sorry if I was being too mean in my earlier post. If you have a specific question feel free to ask.
 

echoco

Recruit
Here's a recent break down of why the old leveling system felt unfair to players. I cover other issues besides just the level up penalty, but it shows the overall of why that part is unneeded and frustrating IMO.
I just want to make sure anyone reading this knows this is only about the OLD version, not about 1.5.10 beta
*
What I don't like also is the needles layers of non-beneficial complexity in the leveling system. Let me start with what's good and then show the layers where it goes wrongs.

1: You use a skill in game and it raises, giving an advantage and lettings you choose perks and it takes much longer to raise higher as it levels.
^THIS is a complete char-dev system. This alone is enough. Your choices and time in game = your character's advantage. If you wanna bust your bunz trying to max out many things before you character dies, that's your business in a single player game. Really, this is all they need.


2: You must spec into skill via FP and attributes to learn them. More = faster learning
Okay sounds fair.....

3: You must use 5fp and +8 (10)attributes to reach the highest skill caps
WHAT? Now there's skill caps? Why not just faster and slower learning, why have hard caps?

4: You gain +1 attribute every 4th level
That's gonna take a lot levels to max out the things I want! But I guess it's a looooooong game.....

5: Every level up of character reduces you learning speed for all skills.
What? Why? Why am I punished for leveling up? I guess it's to encourage min/maxing and only raising the skill I really want

6: Exp to level up is the same even if you don't invests into skill, you level up just as fast from their actions, no min/max allowed
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw ****, this is the most trolly obnoxious char dev system I've ever seen!
*
Here's a link to that topic with many other options about it.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...stem-still-unenjoyable-and-unbalanced.438163/

Basically, for most players they will have to defeat many many enemies with thier character and thus gain lots of level up raw exp, even if they don't invest FP and attribute into combat skills or have reached the limits of those skill. This means the "level up= learning down" would prevent them from learning the skills they had invested points into, simply because they "played the game" and were active in combat.

Further more, you have said twice that you think a character will reach higher levels or obtain more attributes/fp because of the removal of the leveling punishment, this is just not true because the removal of "skill exp penalties based on character level" in no way effect the gaining of raw exp used for gaining main levels (which give fp and attributes).

I'm sorry if I was being too mean in my earlier post. If you have a specific question feel free to ask.
OK, I get it now. Skills exp are modified from total exp gained. Thanks for the explaination. Although I still think the removal of the restriction diminish the value of companions and hurt the dynasty building part of the game, but I'll leave it at that.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
OK, I get it now. Skills exp are modified from total exp gained. Thanks for the explaination. Although I still think the removal of the restriction diminish the value of companions and hurt the dynasty building part of the game, but I'll leave it at that.
You're never going to be able to max out all skills because of the limit to focus points and attribute points is what determines you maximum in skill. But the skills you want to level up won't be slowed down to a crawl if you "mistakenly" level skills you didn't want to level. All the new system does is make leveling a bit less grindy and less punishing to the player. (y)
 
I'm not arguing how IBM defined the terminology. I'm arguing how companies are actually applying the term. It is like arguing "douche" is a feminine cleansing product per Webster.
"Douche" is not engineering terminology, you can call your pencil "douche" for all care.

Let's clear one issue: what you call "companies" are obviously gaming companies and they should never be your reference on how Software Development SHOULD work. I am guessing "gaming" because no other company would have an external "beta tester" carry out performance tests (or other alpha stage tests) since a "beta tester" would have no idea about how to perform and report formal tests, let alone fully understand their legal implications.

I think the part you do not get is: just like how "evolution," "pressure," "electron" each has a specific meaning in their respective fields and are not subjective, i.e you cannot say "such and such gaming company defines 'electron' as an ambulance;" you also cannot play around with engineering terminology like "Beta phase testing," either. These companies use their "Beta version" scheme to sell you untested therefore broken products and release them prematurely to work on other projects as soon as a few bugs in beta phase are fixed. Since people like you allow them to redefine terminology and blissfully propagate their lies, they can get away with saying their product is "tested" just because it went through some "Beta phase" that they defined to their hearts content while avoiding the Alpha phase testing altogether.

So, when a game is in Beta version and does not work properly, you should actually shame the developer and ask for your money back; and go back to that game only if and when the developer carries out proper tests and releases a product that actually works. The sole purpose of Beta version should be (read "have to be" in the context of engineering) to get feedback from users and not "finding bugs." If it becomes the latter, you should know that the fraud scheme is on, someone is trying to sell you something untested and you will eventually receive a broken product.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
[...]Since people like you allow them to redefine terminology and blissfully propagate their lies, they can get away with saying their product is "tested" just because it went through some "Beta phase" that they defined to their hearts content while avoiding the Alpha phase testing altogether.[...]
[...]So, when a game is in Beta version and does not work properly, you should actually shame the developer and ask for your money back;[...]
[...]The sole purpose of Beta version should be (read "have to be" in the context of engineering) to get feedback from users and not "finding bugs."[...]
If we go by your rule, the industry will have to roll its carpet and disappear. Software development is not filled with people with good skills. Bug slipping through "alpha" is very normal. Many productions can't afford to hire professional Q&A service whose entire industry is to find bugs, and alpha testing is often down by an in-house team. Oftentimes people are just incompetent, not scammers.

One thing that particularly frustrates me about this field is that definitions vary and often unclear. You referenced IBM (without quoting the exact definition, if I may remind you) about beta testing, but there are others who include finding bugs in their definitions of beta testing. Something along the line of "unexpected errors that are only seen after users use the product in unexpected ways" is often a part of it. IT is so ridiculous on definitions that a "module" in a certain circle of technology can be a very different thing from another.

Besides, what would you think of SAAS products? They roll out changes and updates during their lifetime of service, and bugs and mistakes as silly as typos almost always come with them. This is way out of beta. It's already past release. Are they scams then? Of course not. That's just how it is. In software engineering you need to be flexible, not stiff to academics. If you still have bugs past alpha, you fix it.
 
you cannot say "such and such gaming company defines 'electron' as an ambulance;"
People can. And they do. Screaming against the current that is the evolution of language is futile at best. Last I checked Linguists nowadays have completely abandoned the idea of prescriptive grammar and vocabulary. Funnily enough, evolution "should" never be applied to anything outside the clear boundaries of biology, yet here we are. And memes aren't funny pictures with a caption, yet here we are. And what you should or shouldn't do is really something that's in the realm of philosophy, so we can't really decide about any of this without an authoritative philosopher present. People do not operate under any artificial constraints of an orderly system. If something even remotely works semantically, it'll be adapted in any way the majority see fit.

We're also mostly massive consequentialists, so usually the process by which something has been created is fairly irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
"Douche" is not engineering terminology, you can call your pencil "douche" for all care.

Let's clear one issue: what you call "companies" are obviously gaming companies and they should never be your reference on how Software Development SHOULD work. I am guessing "gaming" because no other company would have an external "beta tester" carry out performance tests (or other alpha stage tests) since a "beta tester" would have no idea about how to perform and report formal tests, let alone fully understand their legal implications.

I think the part you do not get is: just like how "evolution," "pressure," "electron" each has a specific meaning in their respective fields and are not subjective, i.e you cannot say "such and such gaming company defines 'electron' as an ambulance;" you also cannot play around with engineering terminology like "Beta phase testing," either. These companies use their "Beta version" scheme to sell you untested therefore broken products and release them prematurely to work on other projects as soon as a few bugs in beta phase are fixed. Since people like you allow them to redefine terminology and blissfully propagate their lies, they can get away with saying their product is "tested" just because it went through some "Beta phase" that they defined to their hearts content while avoiding the Alpha phase testing altogether.

So, when a game is in Beta version and does not work properly, you should actually shame the developer and ask for your money back; and go back to that game only if and when the developer carries out proper tests and releases a product that actually works. The sole purpose of Beta version should be (read "have to be" in the context of engineering) to get feedback from users and not "finding bugs." If it becomes the latter, you should know that the fraud scheme is on, someone is trying to sell you something untested and you will eventually receive a broken product.

Actually, I am talking about Adobe, Avid, Blackmagic Design - etc. Not video game developers.
First off, I think you missed the point of the "douche" analogy. Language is alive. Unless you are talking in Latin, definition and usage change over time. When IBM probably set the definition for their development I'm sure they did not plan for applications to have thousands and thousands (even hundreds of thousands) of lines of codes being used in an infinite hardware combination with varying software configurations.

Second, "finding bugs" is a process that never stops. Be it in alpha, beta, or release. To disqualify an application because a bug was found is rather silly.
 
Oftentimes people are just incompetent, not scammers.

Except for the sales team. The sales team are definitely scammers. They tend to promise things they have absolutely no idea about.


Besides, what would you think of SAAS products? They roll out changes and updates during their lifetime of service, and bugs and mistakes as silly as typos almost always come with them.

SaaS is a different kettle of fish. Even then, a company that doesn't ensure a high QoS will soon find themselves out of business. Users are less forgiving nowadays.
 

Adrivan

Sergeant at Arms
"Douche" is not engineering terminology, you can call your pencil "douche" for all care.

Let's clear one issue: what you call "companies" are obviously gaming companies and they should never be your reference on how Software Development SHOULD work. I am guessing "gaming" because no other company would have an external "beta tester" carry out performance tests (or other alpha stage tests) since a "beta tester" would have no idea about how to perform and report formal tests, let alone fully understand their legal implications.

I think the part you do not get is: just like how "evolution," "pressure," "electron" each has a specific meaning in their respective fields and are not subjective, i.e you cannot say "such and such gaming company defines 'electron' as an ambulance;" you also cannot play around with engineering terminology like "Beta phase testing," either. These companies use their "Beta version" scheme to sell you untested therefore broken products and release them prematurely to work on other projects as soon as a few bugs in beta phase are fixed. Since people like you allow them to redefine terminology and blissfully propagate their lies, they can get away with saying their product is "tested" just because it went through some "Beta phase" that they defined to their hearts content while avoiding the Alpha phase testing altogether.

So, when a game is in Beta version and does not work properly, you should actually shame the developer and ask for your money back; and go back to that game only if and when the developer carries out proper tests and releases a product that actually works. The sole purpose of Beta version should be (read "have to be" in the context of engineering) to get feedback from users and not "finding bugs." If it becomes the latter, you should know that the fraud scheme is on, someone is trying to sell you something untested and you will eventually receive a broken product.
Dude, you sound like a total douche, just saying
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Except for the sales team. The sales team are definitely scammers. They tend to promise things they have absolutely no idea about.
Yeah, I too hate Bill from Sales & Marketing.

SaaS is a different kettle of fish. Even then, a company that doesn't ensure a high QoS will soon find themselves out of business. Users are less forgiving nowadays.
It's still software development, but yes, companies that are bad at QA will fail faster. That's just how most business are. If your product or service sucks people will stop buying it.
 

LyonExodus

Recruit
OK, I get it now. Skills exp are modified from total exp gained. Thanks for the explaination. Although I still think the removal of the restriction diminish the value of companions and hurt the dynasty building part of the game, but I'll leave it at that.
Before the levelling change in 1.5.10. all New AI lords (Kids and the ones who didn't start as you launch the game) were crap since leveliing was so impactfull on XP gain.
Other thing to keep in mind: with Death and Old Age now being a thing, you character should be able to reach the last perk in the skill you invest a ton of points in. this was close to impossible to achive for many skill before the change. your companions were forever either crap (80) or decent (120) at the skill never reaching their full potential.

The change is a huge deal and by itself makes 1.5.10. the best version of the game by far.
Also now New AI lords can actaully level skills, making the late game a bit more challenging and not (it still is but got better) just a long grind.

Also cap works this way so even if you are level 40 you will not "realisticly" be able to achive the max level in any skill: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bannerlord/comments/gill8j/bannerlord_skill_cap_formula_tested_verified/

The main reason this change as to be done is to make Death (for companions\ clan members ) and Old Age(Main Character) actually playable.
if you don't understand why all of this is a good and welcome change i don't know what to tell you other then you probably didn't play the game enough.

Cheers.
 
People can. And they do. Screaming against the current that is the evolution of language is futile at best. Last I checked Linguists nowadays have completely abandoned the idea of prescriptive grammar and vocabulary. Funnily enough, evolution "should" never be applied to anything outside the clear boundaries of biology, yet here we are. And memes aren't funny pictures with a caption, yet here we are. And what you should or shouldn't do is really something that's in the realm of philosophy, so we can't really decide about any of this without an authoritative philosopher present. People do not operate under any artificial constraints of an orderly system. If something even remotely works semantically, it'll be adapted in any way the majority see fit.

We're also mostly massive consequentialists, so usually the process by which something has been created is fairly irrelevant.
Actually, I am talking about Adobe, Avid, Blackmagic Design - etc. Not video game developers.
First off, I think you missed the point of the "douche" analogy. Language is alive. Unless you are talking in Latin, definition and usage change over time. When IBM probably set the definition for their development I'm sure they did not plan for applications to have thousands and thousands (even hundreds of thousands) of lines of codes being used in an infinite hardware combination with varying software configurations.

Second, "finding bugs" is a process that never stops. Be it in alpha, beta, or release. To disqualify an application because a bug was found is rather silly.
You do not get the point and still think "beta" is just another word in everyday language. We are talking about terminology here, the meaning of these words do not change unless through the respective discipline. I already gave the example of how one cannot redefine "electron" unless through scientific means. But maybe you guys do that in your country and electron today means absolutely something else there, who the f knows at this point :smile: But if you say to a Physicist "this is what we call electron from now on, get used to it" the guy will only laugh at you. This is the same with "beta version." However I cannot really laugh because as I said people like you whose only knowledge about the subject comes from "hearsay" or "what people do" allow big players to get away with selling products without testing them.

Whoever told you that 'finding bugs' is a process that never stops also sold you a few bridges I suppose :smile: First of all; it is not 'a process' but more importantly, no software has ever been maintained forever; i.e the process which is "debugging" comes after release of a presumably well-tested and working product, during maintenance stage in Software Development Lifecycle. Once a product is considered "complete" whatever the relevant metrics are, and unless there is any maintenance contract or something similar, devs simply stop working on it. End of story. I assume what you mean to say is no (sufficiently complex) Software is bug-free, which is more or less correct. But that is completely outside of my argument as when I say "game does not work properly" I am not talking about the odd bug that happens once in a million cases; I am talking about critical functionality failing, but the product still being released because it is not tested in the first place. If I say I made a car but who knows if it works, never tested it, would you buy my car? You would not, but we give gaming companies a pass in this and they almost never fail to disappoint in the end.

By the way, you are debating a senior engineer about engineering terminology. Do you this with doctors as well? Or just us? Like, do you go to a doctor and say "nah, this is what we call metacarpal bones today; catch up doc, language evolves!" :smile:
 
You do not get the point and still think "beta" is just another word in everyday language. We are talking about terminology here, the meaning of these words do not change unless through the respective discipline. I already gave the example of how one cannot redefine "electron" unless through scientific means. But maybe you guys do that in your country and electron today means absolutely something else there, who the f knows at this point :smile: But if you say to a Physicist "this is what we call electron from now on, get used to it" the guy will only laugh at you. This is the same with "beta version." However I cannot really laugh because as I said people like you whose only knowledge about the subject comes from "hearsay" or "what people do" allow big players to get away with selling products without testing them.

Whoever told you that 'finding bugs' is a process that never stops also sold you a few bridges I suppose :smile: First of all; it is not 'a process' but more importantly, no software has ever been maintained forever; i.e the process which is "debugging" comes after release of a presumably well-tested and working product, during maintenance stage in Software Development Lifecycle. Once a product is considered "complete" whatever the relevant metrics are, and unless there is any maintenance contract or something similar, devs simply stop working on it. End of story. I assume what you mean to say is no (sufficiently complex) Software is bug-free, which is more or less correct. But that is completely outside of my argument as when I say "game does not work properly" I am not talking about the odd bug that happens once in a million cases; I am talking about critical functionality failing, but the product still being released because it is not tested in the first place. If I say I made a car but who knows if it works, never tested it, would you buy my car? You would not, but we give gaming companies a pass in this and they almost never fail to disappoint in the end.

By the way, you are debating a senior engineer about engineering terminology. Do you this with doctors as well? Or just us? Like, do you go to a doctor and say "nah, this is what we call metacarpal bones today; catch up doc, language evolves!" :smile:

You are still ignoring what I said - software developers using beta to find bugs and troubleshoot. You can keep beating that dead horse about the word beta is written in stone (it is not) and ignore the reality.

Beta, unlike electron, is designed and executed ever so differently from each company - no matter what IBM says. You can keep parroting what your comp-sci prof told you. It is not changing what is happening in the real world. And companies "violating" your definition of beta are not going to get their developer license revoked any time soon.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
Not only he didn't quote the IBM definition he referenced, he also moved the goalpost from "finding bugs in beta" to "I'm talking about basic functions failing" and pulled the "I'm a senior engineer" card.

You can keep beating that dead horse about the word beta is written in stone (it is not) and ignore the reality.
And you're absolutely right. Not only that the definition is not already set in stone, the definition of beta testing varies, as do many other definitions in this field. There are those that define alpha/beta by the site of testing (in-house vs client), the population that conduct the test (extends to the definitions of open/closed beta), the timing of the testing, and of course the purposes (which also vary).

Beta testing is not something as specific as physical matters like electron and bones, and thus the definitions vary. It's an activity consisting of many actions over a period of time, so of course it's not. Hell, even physic terms have many definitions stated by various scientists, even though they have the same general idea. This is why scientific texts start with definitions. People who have done a research at least once would know that they need to cite various experts instead of just one precisely for this reason. Funny thing is, the first word in R&D is research.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom