Why mods can fix and improve the game but devs can t?

Users who are viewing this thread

This is why developers are reluctant to provide visibility into what's going on with development or to release unfinished games, because most players routinely misunderstand the process and how to interpret the state of a game just by playing it.

Now don't get me wrong - the feeling of "what have they been doing for the past decade?" is understandable given that right now Bannerlord is basically just the HD version of Warband with some important features removed/broken, and some new features ranging from interesting to questionable added instead.

But the silver lining is actually hiding in the complaint expressed by this thread's title. The reason modders are able to fix a lot of the issues with the game currently is because Taleworlds has invested heavily in building a foundation that makes that possible. It has taken them a long time to do it, arguably too long, but the moddable engine they have built means that most of the tuning and improvements needed to flesh the game out are accessible to people who were not involved in the programming of the game's engine or core content. That is pure gold, and people are starting to take advantage of it before the official modding tools have even been released. For now the developers are focusing on fixes that modders still can't do, as they should, and the rate at which they've been pumping them out has been impressive.

So go ahead and be upset at the state of the game, there are justifiable reasons to be so. Your expectations about where it should be after so long have not been met. But do not despair over its future potential. As the platform stabilises, content and tuning will flow from developers and modders alike at a pace which might even satisfy players who don't understand how much work it actually takes to make a good game.
Great post. You actually changed how I have been viewing the situation. Thank you.
 
The main problem is that they don't talk. (Besides @mexxico, ty for that btw.)

No roadmap. No official featurelist. The devblogs are mostly useless and vague. The featurelist on the website is one of the most vague featurelists I've ever seen (pretty sure on purpose). The very long developement time. And so much more...

Early Access Schmearly Access or not.

That's not a good look and doesn't give much confidence/trust.
 
Last edited:
The community demanded "early access when", I personally was content to wait. Now its released people are complaining. When they tried to keep people updated on their progress, people complained.

I'm okay with Single Player in its current state, I'm very happy with the speed they are fixing and developing various aspects of the game and I also think its smart to leave other bits and bats to modders to tinker with.

Although I do believe Multiplayer is suffering. Battle and duel mode along with private servers should have been in place for release to allow clans to encourage this facet of the game to keep moving forward. But I have also read in the forums that these features are likely to be added when the game is nearly finished because it would take a considerable amount of time to add updates (don't fully understand this as my knowledge of coding and game development is limited).

Either way, I can't really complain. I paid £35 for this which is super cheap. I put about 1600 hours into Warband, and downloaded loads of mods for it. I expect in time this game will be the same (especially if they have designed the engine to be highy mod-able). Yes its rusty around the edges at the moment but it has the same charm and feel as the previous titles had.
 
Now, I know devs are working from home, and everything is much slower than it should be and this is EA, but for me main issue is what is on top of priority list to fix? Is nerfing caravan really that important right now or late game money, when 50% perks doesn't work, or broken siege battles and combat AI, random wars?There are so many things to fix, I am just surprised about their choices, that's all.
 
Literally every complaint about bugs, missing features and what not is completely countered by the fact that this is EA.

If the game launched PROPERLY and still had these issues, sure, complain all you want. As long as it is in EA however, you will just have to deal with the fact that YOUR priorities might not reflect the priorities of the devs when it comes to fixing bugs, balancing the game and adding new features.
 
Now, I know devs are working from home, and everything is much slower than it should be and this is EA, but for me main issue is what is on top of priority list to fix? Is nerfing caravan really that important right now or late game money, when 50% perks doesn't work, or broken siege battles and combat AI, random wars?There are so many things to fix, I am just surprised about their choices, that's all.
It's a completely fair point. Balancing should come after fundamental things that are broken are actually made to work. Perks can be considered fundamental and need fixing. Caravans were working but were just not properly balanced.

At the moment, TW are not living up to their own advertised blurb of a: "stable experience where you may encounter obscure bugs". It's an unstable experience for many where we are all encountering core features that are broken.

Literally every complaint about bugs, missing features and what not is completely countered by the fact that this is EA.

If the game launched PROPERLY and still had these issues, sure, complain all you want. As long as it is in EA however, you will just have to deal with the fact that YOUR priorities might not reflect the priorities of the devs when it comes to fixing bugs, balancing the game and adding new features.

This is exactly the kind of illogical fanboy nonsense referred to above. Thanks for providing a golden and quotable example for me to use in future.
 
It blows my mind seeing all the whining on the forums, it's the same garbage you see in every EA forum. It's like people were expecting to play a fully polished AAA title instead of buying into a game still in development...
It blows my mind seeing people who defend 55$ apha test.

Only one good thing - more time for modders to create really good game.
 
Last edited:
It blows my mind seeing people who defend 55$ apha test.

Only one good thing - more time for modders to create really good game.
Yes, this is one of the primary reasons why I have invested in the game and why it will (hopefully) stand the test of time. The scope for amazing mods later down the line like LOTR, Warhammer and GoT etc makes me very excited. :smile:

It would be good if the visuals get some good polish in future too as I think the engine, though it may not be so advanced, can handle a lot more details than it provides on modern systems without too much slowdown.
 
Yes, this is one of the primary reasons why I have invested in the game and why it will (hopefully) stand the test of time. The scope for amazing mods later down the line like LOTR, Warhammer and GoT etc makes me excited.
MnB warhammer mod. My dream...
 
This is exactly the kind of irrational, defensively tetchy and altogether very predictable fanboy response I was referring to.
You keep using the word "rational". It doesn't mean what you think it means.

I've been doing active skepticism since before Hitchens was famous. So, take your time, without ad hominem or namecalling, present your case.

You would reasonably expect the game experience to not be according to the EA statement because....?
The price of EA + full game should be less than that of the full game because.....?

And don't worry about "others" or "the community". Concentrate on yourself. Why do they get this bs from you?
 
I don't get the bickering about the price at all. I'd only ***** about it if the game was fully released in it's current state.

There is way more important stuff to bicker about so it doesn't even come to that possiblity.
 
Back
Top Bottom