Current situation

[longbow93]

I was wondering if I am the only one between the ex-betaplayers to feel like the current state of the game is not even worthy to be called prealpha stage of a proper release.

Non-existent class balance which destroy also faction balance, I would never be able to call this game right now Mount&Blade, I'd either rename it CSS Medieval Mod, or just fix it.
It has got the possibility to become one of the nicest game ever, yet it is completely wasted right now.

I'd really like if any Dev could answer here, not about the matter, but just to know whether the game is dead, or Devs are still alive (  Really?! )

P.s. there's alot more problems that just the unbalance, yet they are ignored, such as glancing, impossible swings and stabs connecting, due to spinning too etc..

 

[Rhade]

Although I don't agree with everything posted, I will agree that competitive play ignores infantry 95% of the time.

Range rules the day, every day, all day, with cavalry support.

 

[Ischenous]

I mostly agree, sadly.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

I agree in the sense that I find the game unbalanced, still bug ridden and in need of some fixing.

That being said it is not an alpha build by any means.

Unfortunately, I think this is about as good as Warband is going to get, the Developers appear to have moved on and unless anything significant happens I see no real reason to play anymore.

 

[Kazzan]

I don't find glancing to be a huge issue for me, I mostly never glance, and when I do I know it'll glance.

feel like the current state of the game is not even worthy to be called prealpha stage of a proper release.

Don't feel that way, though I'd love for the game to be improved.

I would never be able to call this game right now Mount&Blade, I'd either rename it CSS Medieval Mod

Trouble is CS:S teams are balanced.  It's kinda hard for me to judge balance since the gap in players skill is so large. I mean, the team with better coordination and player skill will win, just like in CS:S, can't see how that's a problem. Or the team with archer spam. Though I never was a master at determining balance

impossible swings and stabs connecting, due to spinning too etc..

Yeah, gotta love those...  It'd be better if spinning was limited somehow.

 

[DanAngleland]

The problem with the impossible swings and other such things which ruin the multiplayer experience for me is that they aren't things that can easily be improved without changing the fighting mechanics significantly. M&B is a singelplayer game first and foremost (and should remain so in my opinion), and the introduction of multiplayer inevitably resulted in the discovery of exploits and problems with the combat that didn't show up in singleplayer. I think it is a big ask to design a combat system that doesn't have these problems, and I don't think it is fair to blame the devs entirely for what is largely down to human nature, especially of those players who seem to care only about winning and finding more ways to win, no matter how ridiculous they look in game (spinning etc). As far as multiplayer games go, I think this is a good one. I'm glad to see I am not the only one who is jaded about the game though.

 

[Gurnisson]

Fair points, and I mostly agree with them.

 

[longbow93]

The problem with the impossible swings and other such things which ruin the multiplayer experience for me is that they aren't things that can easily be improved without changing the fighting mechanics significantly. M&B is a singelplayer game first and foremost (and should remain so in my opinion), and the introduction of multiplayer inevitably resulted in the discovery of exploits and problems with the combat that didn't show up in singleplayer. I think it is a big ask to design a combat system that doesn't have these problems, and I don't think it is fair to blame the devs entirely for what is largely down to human nature, especially of those players who seem to care only about winning and finding more ways to win, no matter how ridiculous they look in game (spinning etc). As far as multiplayer games go, I think this is a good one. I'm glad to see I am not the only one who is jaded about the game though.

Well, once you release a game in which you say that multiplayer is implemented, either you work on it and fix it since you didn't properly create it or if you are not ready to do such things, don't even bother creating a game that you will leave broken.

 

[kalevi]

mostly agree, like the others. the game hasn't developed at all since release. players have improved (somewhat), but the game has probably become more buggy with every minor patch that's released.

random instant attacks and other related stuff have just become something that's the norm, and frankly it's not THAT much of an issue. the most pressing issue to me has always been the range prevalence in the game. shields are shocking as well. the maps too. fundamentally the game is flawed in seriously countless ways.

i mean, you've got manual blocking, something that in my opinion is the best thing about the game (even despite its simplicity), something that requires a little bit of skill. but why bother? just get a jarrid and one shot someone.

the game was released in a really underdeveloped state, and apparently hindsight is not something tw care for in the slightest.

a guy in aus actually worked for months on a mod that addressed a heap of balance issues, from economy to actual weapon functionality. i'm pretty sure he gave up after realising that your average warband player has no clue in the first place.

could go on, but feel like i have done so hundreds of times on other (now banned) accounts.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

I was wondering if I am the only one between the ex-betaplayers to feel like the current state of the game is not even worthy to be called prealpha stage of a proper release.

A bit harsh, but I pretty much agree.

There are major problems with the game, including features that are simply broken. Examples include character animation, shield coverage against melee attacks, and spin-attacks.

Also, even though I don't personally care too much about teams and classes being "balanced" (in the sense of being equal), there are obvious problems in that area too. One being that horse archery is far too effective. The general lack of faction balance probably hurt the player population pretty badly as well. My good friend above represents a good slice of the population with his desire for unbiased competition, which Native certainly does not provide.

 

[Chaingun]

I recognize this discussion. At risk of being slightly off topic in this complaint-fest:

In all games I've played that have had some kind of competitive element, a small portion of the player base (the 1337 portion) inevitably ends up feeling screwed when the developers move on to something with a bigger chance of generating revenue. The problem is 1337 players don't pay more for the game than the majority who don't care for perfect MP balance. Developers' incentives follow thusly.

Now, it is usually argued (by the 1337 players themselves) that competitive gaming ensures that games survive much longer than intended. Furthermore, it is argued that developers profit on this. Starcraft is usually cited, but it's probably the exception rather than the rule.

More most games however, including Warband, developers can't monetize on prolonged survival. Warband is a one time purchase, and sales after release probably looks like a Cexp(-kt) function with k > 0... Fact of the matter is a large number of players prefer to play what's hot (graphically and storywise). They simply aren't affected by broken MP balance.

Of course, 1337 gamers then argue that there is a reputation to uphold, money or not. Surely there is, but even a reputation can be translated to a monetary value. Thus, patching a game to keep a minority of the player base content is like any other investment, and it would surprise me if Taleworlds does not consider costs versus potential (miniscule) revenue increases when they plan Warband patches.

So don't delude yourselves, it's all about making a profit and a living. Taleworlds has monthly wages to pay, and I don't blaim them for pursuing more profitable ventures.

 

[captain lust]

Although I don't agree with everything posted, I will agree that competitive play ignores infantry 95% of the time.

Range rules the day, every day, all day, with cavalry support.

Maybe it wouldn't if US scrims were a little bigger and the KBOOB rules didn't encourage everyone to pick random plains...

I think almost every KBOOB scrim I've played in has started random plains - Vaegirs vs Sarranids and it's just down to ruleset.

 

[longbow93]

Map and faction doesn't even matter, except a few cases in which the ranged is balanced with the others, like nord town, all other maps make it excessively stronger due to the ( more or less ) absence of negative factors you get by being an archer.

 

[Morii]

Good game, could be better.

Hoping that new 'War of the Roses' game is gonna be all that we hope it could be (ie. Warband 2).

 

[longbow93]

Just searched for it, seems like a properly working and re-made warband 

 

[Kazzan]

I think warband is fine for Taleworlds first attempt at a game with Multiplayer. Have my hope that it'll only get better.

 

[captain lust]

Just searched for it, seems like a properly working and re-made warband 

That a joke?

 

[Morii]

Can't really say anything yet about that War of Roses game, since not that much is known about it except that they say the combat will be like Warband. I hope it'll be good ofc, but we'll see.

 

[longbow93]

Not really, I looked at some screenshots and the gameplay seemed quite similar to warband while the graphic was ultimate level-like

 

[Habbla]

Am I really the only one who do not have a problem with these impossible hits and glances?
Glancing happens because you do not hit correctly.
Yes, you can turn a whole lot, even so much that fighting looks pretty much ridiculous. Is there really such a problem there, except that it just looks ugly? It makes the fighting a whole lot more interesting. Of course I would prefer that it looked somewhat good - but it's just looks. Not a biggie.
Still, nothing is really explained by the game, so I can understand the frustration in this.

I do agree on the balance part for battles and such. And that the devs have pretty much overlooked warband completely.
I have to say though: who said that battles are somehow supposed to have more infantry? I bet it would be a lot more entertaining if this was the case though.