-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Will TW do a No Mans Sky thing?
- 主题发起人 MostBlunted
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
How in the world do Bannerlord sieges function worse?
There's more to it and more going on that doesn't function coherently or well at all, thus it is more annoying to deal with. Warband's sieges were not completely working either, but its simplicity in comparison gave way to less things functioning wrong and thus being less annoying. This isn't even a minority opinion, either. Why, even some in this thread reflected the same opinion. Sieges, whilst still broken in Warband yes, were simply not as annoying and problematic to deal with as they are in Bannerlord. This led to a far more enjoyable experience when it came to sieges.
For those who assume the comparative is an insinuation that Warband was perfect, well, I have nothing to say to that.
Goyyyio
Sergeant
Yeah say that when you have a Sony executive in your throat with the threat that your company will become boxed and put in a closet to never see the light of day again. They didn't do "the right thing" they did what they had to, to make their game survive, and if you can't appreciate that then it's your problem. See cyberpunk 2077 now? It's not getting any better, No Man's Sky it's a different game than what it was on release, and it was thanks to them complying to the pressure and exposing themselves to a world wide hate, but their plan was to make a great game from the beginning and they did, and after all they went through (it wasnt just the hate, watch the video ffs, it explains everything) they deserve to be treated respectfully. If Taleworlds pulls anything like this, then yeah, why would I spend my precious time hating a game company. It's nonsensical doing it for so long
OK: I don't think Warband's ramp face-smash was an example of sieges working better.
it could be argued that at least troops could be blocked from climbing stairs and that the melee combat was better. So, subjectively, it can be said. Warband sieging lacked pathing and siege engines, engine couldn't deal with destructibles nor interactive objects, not even moveables until Viking Conquest came out. All in all, a simple port of warband to a new engine (literal copy&paste) and than working on adding pathing, behavior and interactibles (including doors like we see in BL) than it would be objectively better, simply because everything else in WB works better than in BL.
There's logic to that argument, it's just not that easy a pov to grasp.
And if we're to keep into practical objectivety, Warband had better gameplay minus sieges, with better loops and coherent features. BL's addictive, but the core loops are flawed and boring, balancing's questionable, combat's worse, commanding troops' 10 times more clunky and downgraded, AI behavior seems erractic in comparison, perk systems' clunky and poorly thought, smithing doesn't make any sense, villages were downgraded, castles' remain just as useless, campaign AI hasn't improved not even an inch, and to top it all, collision was removed for cavalry against walking characters, which to me is among the greates offenders along with AI being able to push the PC, which's exceptionally annoying.
Ultimately, there's too much AI automation and a blatant partial removal of player control over troops in battles and complete removal in sieges. If we interact with the troops they'll get into erractic behavior. We can't order battlement placements, strategical defense retreats (although defensive sieges are almost impossible to happen), keep defense's just as generic as it was in WB, so on so forth. We lost the ability to command troops to take 10 steps back or forward, when what we needed was a much more deep command system, instead they've removed it and we still can't control formation targets nor tactical maneuvers like skirmishing. We also needed a completely separate one for sieges to order specific entry points and engines operation, as well as for defensive being able to order tactical placements, displacements, and retreats. As is, if you got the troops, you're basically watching an interactive cinematic when in sieges.
It's much like it used to be in Warband basically, it's just more of the same with catapults and breakable doors in much bigger scenes, the best tactical move in defensive if you got elite troops' to open the gates and order a charge, identical to Warband. I'm dead serious.
最后编辑:
People saying Warband sieges are better than Bannerlord sieges are full of it. Total example of trolling gone overboard.
They both suck. In both warband and bannerlord they take the dynamic open field gameplay, remove the horses, and force an entire field army through narrow chokepoints which take forever to grind through. Personally, I don't think it's possible to make that kind of thing fun under any circumstances, and if they made infantry fights longer (which I think they should), it would make sieges completely insufferable.
In warband it was less of an issue because garrisons were smaller (around 150 for a castle in the midgame), but in the mods that pumped it up to 500 men in a city, it was worse than bannerlord. I think if (most) sieges were like halfway between the current village battles and city sieges, it would be a lot less annoying.
The Gekokujo mod did this, it used layered, semi-open defenses rather than a single wall, meaning you could manouevre inside the courtyard at any point during the siege. There were choke points but the combat would ebb and flow between the gate and the keep, since reinforcements would be pushing back and forth from both sides. These sieges were actually a lot of fun. I get that 16th century castles have a fundamentally different design to the average medieval european castle, but there has to be a better system than spending 10 minutes waiting for your men to push into a ladder or breach meatgrinder before you can do anything.
In warband it was less of an issue because garrisons were smaller (around 150 for a castle in the midgame), but in the mods that pumped it up to 500 men in a city, it was worse than bannerlord. I think if (most) sieges were like halfway between the current village battles and city sieges, it would be a lot less annoying.
The Gekokujo mod did this, it used layered, semi-open defenses rather than a single wall, meaning you could manouevre inside the courtyard at any point during the siege. There were choke points but the combat would ebb and flow between the gate and the keep, since reinforcements would be pushing back and forth from both sides. These sieges were actually a lot of fun. I get that 16th century castles have a fundamentally different design to the average medieval european castle, but there has to be a better system than spending 10 minutes waiting for your men to push into a ladder or breach meatgrinder before you can do anything.
That's because you keep assuming I'm trying to use Warband as an example to work toward, I think. That's not at all what I'm trying to get at.
I don't think Warband is good example of what Bannerlord should be like in regards to sieging, because it also sucked just in different ways. I'm just saying that it was less of a headache to deal with. I gave some reasons as to why above, but xdj1nn and Kentucky go into a bit more detail below for other reasons why it'd come off "better" compared to Bannerlord below. If you're interested in it.
Basically.
And just having to deal with less men getting stuck on ladders/pathing issues or just less to deal with with what I personally feel like is better "control" over them (AI troops), made it a far more enjoyable experience. Even if, beneath all of that, it still sucked and you had to watch 50 men try to get up or down a ladder at once... just think I'd rather deal with the issues in Warband than deal with the issues in Bannerlord.
I still maintain though that beyond sieges, Warband definitely has better gameplay and "feeling" to it. For example, commanding troops on field in Warband feels a lot more responsive, less clunky and rewarding than it does in Bannerlord. It was actually one of my favorite things to do in Warband, so I was pretty disappointed to see how it doesn't work quite as well.
All this comparing between WB and BL, guys wb was running on an engine developed in 2009. To compare these two at all is legitimising that wb was better designed and developed. Thats like comparing Rome 2 total war to rome 1. BL experience is, as it is now, extremely underwhelming. For example, between BL and VC, VC is infinitely better, even using the archaic engine
nah it wasn't developed in 2009, it was updated to support multiplayer and had some important additions to it, it was developed much earlier than that xD
The big improvement in BL for me is being able to knock down a wall and just walk in.
Yes, exactly this.
That is exactly my point. BL is a good game compared to 2009 game. It does not mean that its good by itself. Thats why I said that even arguing that BL is good because its "better than warband" is admitting that BL is in fact not good outside that domain of comparation
five bucks
Knight at Arms
So Sony was explicitly telling them to lie to the public about multiplayer or else their studio would be shut down and we have PROOF of this? I find that hard to believe but even if it were true, what would Sony do exactly? Cancel production? Obviously not, they had invested too much already. Ruin Hello Games' reputation? Well that happened anyway because they lied.
They also knew what they were getting into when they sold out and joined Sony - everyone knows AAA studios are sleazy.
I also think that even if Hello Games are innocent in this situation and one could prove that, No Man's Sky as a whole still would deserve a bad reputation.
When DICE makes a ****ty game on launch where the fault could arguably be attributed to EA, I don't just go ahead and say "oh well I can't criticize Battlefield 2042 because it's not DICE's fault that EA outsourced half their studio". Instead the game deservedly gets a **** reputation, even if DICE might be innocent, and making an example of 2042 hopefully discourages publishers from putting developers in situations like that in future.
Whereas giving No Man's Sky a retroactively positive reputation for simply doing what they were meant to but very late - and in fact, using them as a good example! - directly tells publishers that it is 100% OK to force developers to lie to customers and release incomplete games.
No - instead, I simply don't support crap games, and call them out as crap. In no other industry is this kind of lying acceptable except the games industry, where people are willing to fall for all kinds of tricks like "it's the developer's fault, nothing I can do and the game shouldn't be criticised, I guess."
Two wrongs don't make an okay.
No man's sky isn't even that great.
They lied and delivered a bad incomplete game it took them years to fix - now they get to be associated with the word "good"?
On the one hand yes our time is precious, on the other hand if you're going to discuss a game company at all then hating them is not much more effort than praising them.
I wouldn't say No Man's Sky isn't great. It's actually a lot of fun, and it's pretty popular now, so clearly it's reached a point where a majority of customers can really enjoy it. Yea, it released bad and they didn't deliver on its promises, but they took their criticism and their failings, and they turned it around. That is good. And fixing their mistakes or righting their wrongs being good doesn't mean it removes the bad from what they originally did, it just means they're righting it. And that should always be a good thing.
If we can't even have companies fix mistakes and praise that, why should they ever? If they're going to be damned regardless, they won't even try. They'll continue to release the functioning bare minimum needed to get $60 out of people and never be ambitious again (exactly what we are going to get with Bannerlord). Just like with the Call of Duty and Battlefield customers, buying the same re-skinned trash over and over every year, because those companies knows it'll work so long as it functions out the gate.
I guess personally as a gamer and customer, I would rather have a company fix their mistakes if they've been made, than chastise them for trying to make it right. Although ideally, of course, they wouldn't make them in the first place....
If we can't even have companies fix mistakes and praise that, why should they ever? If they're going to be damned regardless, they won't even try. They'll continue to release the functioning bare minimum needed to get $60 out of people and never be ambitious again (exactly what we are going to get with Bannerlord). Just like with the Call of Duty and Battlefield customers, buying the same re-skinned trash over and over every year, because those companies knows it'll work so long as it functions out the gate.
I guess personally as a gamer and customer, I would rather have a company fix their mistakes if they've been made, than chastise them for trying to make it right. Although ideally, of course, they wouldn't make them in the first place....
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Because to start off, it wasn't a "mistake" aka accident to lie about what would be available at launch. It was a consciously made decision to lie and then leave that lie uncorrected for quite a long period of time.
My stance is that it should be acknowledged that the game was fixed eventually. But it should equally be remembered that it is not okay that the game was launched in an incomplete state in the first place.
Otherwise if it is normalised to release games in a bad state and be allowed to get away with it if you fix it eventually, it will just become more and more commonplace in the industry. In fact it already is quite commonplace.
Nah. Holding companies to account for their lies isn't going to kill all ambition.
Battlefield actually suffers more from what I'm talking about than what you're talking about.
Look at Battlefield 2042, it was hugely ambitious with dumb ideas like heroes and catastrophic weather systems - the opposite of what you're saying about a lack of ambition. But it was also extremely broken and incomplete at launch, which is what I'm complaining about.
Bannerlord will not be "bare minimum functioning but not ambitious" at launch, not at the current pace of progress. Considering we have 1 month to go, I fully expect half the issues with the many features they've tried to add to still be remaining.
Again - it wasn't a mere mistake. We aren't talking about shipping a build at launch which had bugs they didn't catch in testing.
Multiplayer was a major feature which they even had printed on the box! They knew exactly what they were doing by lying.
Goyyyio
Sergeant
Well, you can make your own stories in your head on what happened or what Hello Games were thinking, the truth is this: they sold a poor game, got devastated by the internet, and then made it up by actually providing what they promised and worked their asses off to deliver that. You can ignore all of that and still throw shade to this day, while they continue working on the game to make it better. If this isn't a case of blind hate, it's probably just your boredom making you jump to have any argument you can have. There is nothing substantial coming out of this conversation lmao bye.
I will admit, I'm not too versed in the early production for NMS, but I am aware they promised something and ultimately did not deliver any of it. I wouldn't call that a mistake in NMS's example, but a lie/false advertisement. I'm aware of that, and I wasn't trying to say do not hold them accountable for what they do and that doing so will kill their ambition. That's actually really far away from what I was meaning. Hold them accountable for their mistakes/lies/etc and if they actually stand up to change what they did, hold them to that too. It can only help reinforce that behavior if customers are willing to admit something's improved as easily as they are to admit something is bad/garbage/lie/etc.
So they finally delivered what they said they were going to. They did the bare minimum of what you would expect from a project. I get that some people just like to complain, but at the same time you shouldn't actively be praising a project that just does what it says in the tin. None of this would have been acceptable even 10 years ago.
Most of the discussion around NMS is more about human drama than the game. People like the idea of a smallish studio having a comeback story like a hollywood film. It's a wholesome cool story, but as far as the game itself is concerned none of that matters. It's the same with bannerlord. Even if they fix everything and add all the features they promised at the start, it'll still be a solid 7/10 and I'd still rather play something else.
