Multiplayer Game Modes - Updated Info and Discussion

[OurGloriousLeader]

And what do you mean by easier flags? (That assumes that each team has direct access to their own flag if I am not mistaken - which isn't the case.) Surely in the situation you describe it is in a team's best interest to send a cav to the remaining flag to cap that and force the other team to do something? Also, with an extra life or two you have more of an incentive to take a risk and commit to a team fight over a flag knowing that you could still turn it around if things don't work to your favour initially.

Well there's 3 options I guess with the game mode you describe - either each team has an easier flag and a middle flag, in which case they'll take the easier ones then skirmish over the middle. Or, the flags are all equal distance from both spawns, in which case teams will simply go where the other team is not, then contest the final flag. Or finally, 2 or 3 flags are in favour of one team, which creates a sort of Attacker/Defender aspect. This would be the most interesting but also the most unbalanced. I hope it's something like that?

Sending a cav to the remaining flag seems like a cheese tactic that may work but a properly cohesive team will punish a split team. At best it could be used to bait? Also, this highlights another aspect of the game mode - huge buff to cav, mobility is already favoured in M&B and this just makes it more tactically necessary. You could make cav cost a lot and be rare sure, but then that limits the game a lot. More problems.

Finally, I did consider that having extra lives encourages more aggressive play, but this only works as a superficial fix at best. I mean if your thinking as a team is, this plan is really risky but whatever, I can respawn...I think that's just plastering over the issue of aggression being heavily punished in M&B, and coming at the cost of lack of tension and punishment for risking your life which is a big draw of PvP in M&B.

Obviously this theorycrafting can go on forever but I really think there's some fundamental issues with the game mode as described.

 

[Styo]

How about before you make any changes set in stone, you let us, the players test it out. Warband had MP Beta for a long time and this is why MP was popular. We the players told you what needed to be done and you listened. I remember giving feedback right to Armagan. Bring those days back. That is what made you successful. Don't be like EA and change the game for the better without proper testing.

 

[yedrellow]

Why will teams, if playing truly competitive, not simply take the easier flags each then wait until the last moment to fight for the contested flag? aka exactly like current Battle except more predictable due to set flags

Because whichever team doesn't go for the second flag is punished even if the enemy team only dedicates a single soldier to taking it.

That seems very dilute though, you have 6 players across 3 hypothetical flags potentially. By forcing a team to spread across 2 flags to win you get this weird divide where people will be forced to stick on uncontested flags in order to prevent back-caps. This problem existed in Squad where you'd have some players who were forced to sit in certain parts of the map for long periods of time with no action to defend, but the enemy couldn't actually commit people to attack as it would mean they were short of players elsewhere.

Say you had 3 flags, team 1 caps flag a and b, team 2 caps c.

Who defends c?

Who defends a?

A cav?

It seems to me that almost by necessity there will be one backline player per team that wont see much action at all until maybe the very end of the round.

 

[Alloo]

I have to agree with others who voiced their opinion in this thread, while its nice that the team is trying to bring in something new and welcoming to casual players, I don't understand why the competitive community isn't already involved.

Warband is one of those few, rare games that were kept alive by a relatively small, loyal fan base that basically built the competitive scene  from nothing. Having to rely on 'wait and see' or 'we may consider player ideas from the forums' is just not very effective when compared to direct interaction.

 

[Count Delinard]

What many people are maybe failing to see is that what you know as "battle mode" will still be there, just not in Match-Making but through custom servers. We didn't have MM in warband and you used to access Battle mode servers through the server browser. It will be the same here, in case you want to play that mode just open the server browser and join in, no major changes!

And as Duh said, the perks + classes are somehow not so different from what we had in warband, since your choices were pre-defined anyway.

 

[Frostic]

I have one question about matchmaking, because every game I know with a matchmaking system has one problem; Smurfs. How will you guys try to prevent smurfing as much as possible?

There really isn't much we could do to prevent this to be honest. We could prevent Steam family sharing so that they couldn't just hop on an alt account I guess, but if someone wants to buy the game again and play on another account there isn't much we can do about that. I will highlight this point with the rest of the team though to see what we can come up with.

Logically this is an issue that's hard to adress, but perhaps things like counter strike global offensive's prime matchmaking system (you need a phone number to play against other people who've put in their phone number trough steam) and other examples might work. Make an "obstacle course" for smurfs to be able to play whilst this "obstacle course" should be no problem for non-smurf players.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

It seems to me that almost by necessity there will be one backline player per team that wont see much action at all until maybe the very end of the round.

I think, just from experience playing Warband a lot, numbers are far more important than the objective, so we'll simply see teams move around in a ball. Anyone that is split from the team is easy pickings (cav trap, delay and bump, inf catch up, 2v1 him, dead). The only exception to this will be if the objective is so important you literally can't get off of it e.g. the morale drops really quickly. This will make it more tactical but will be extremely unsatisfying as it doesn't favour fights but whoever can hold their shield up on a flag longest.

 

[Scarf Ace]

What many people are maybe failing to see is that what you know as "battle mode" will still be there, just not in Match-Making but through custom servers. We didn't have MM in warband and you used to access Battle mode servers through the server browser. It will be the same here, in case you want to play that mode just open the server browser and join in, no major changes!

And as Duh said, the perks + classes are somehow not so different from what we had in warband, since your choices were pre-defined anyway.

Not including anything like battle in matchmaking is an enormous missed opportunity. Matchmaking would allow you to very easily hop into a massive battle, PUBG style. The appeal of a huge field battle is obvious - making it very quick and easy to join one would be a great selling point. Definitely more marketable than "serious" 6v6.
And as I said, Perks + Classes totally misses the soul of the Warband system. For most players it never was about the optimal loadout. It was often about messing around. Silly loadouts. Crappy weapons. Four stacks of War Darts.

People are totally failing to see that much of the game is not serious or competitive at all. That side needs to be fostered at least just as much as competitive gameplay.

 

[yedrellow]

It seems to me that almost by necessity there will be one backline player per team that wont see much action at all until maybe the very end of the round.

I think, just from experience playing Warband a lot, numbers are far more important than the objective, so we'll simply see teams move around in a ball. Anyone that is split from the team is easy pickings (cav trap, delay and bump, inf catch up, 2v1 him, dead). The only exception to this will be if the objective is so important you literally can't get off of it e.g. the morale drops really quickly. This will make it more tactical but will be extremely unsatisfying as it doesn't favour fights but whoever can hold their shield up on a flag longest.

But if someone just spams cav and then ignores your deathball by going to the other two flags, that would be an issue. The effectiveness of this would depend on the respawn/capture mechanics though.

 

[KhergitLancer80]

We want to make it clear that our aim is not to alienate our existing playerbase through our efforts to attract new players to the game. We will always listen to your feedback and try to work with you to create a game which you will enjoy playing for years to come. But, with that being said, we also have our own thoughts and ideas that we would like to put out there and we are confident that game modes like Skirmish will be well received if you are willing to give them a chance.

Okay, here is my feedback:
If TW is so worried about the balance issues they can exclude some stuff for some troop types, like they did in warband.
For example, excluding shields from archers or excluding better armor types for some troops etc.
For the naked people, as it was discussed in previoust topics, we agreed that it has massive disadvantages compared to its minor advantages so people who do that are doing it in order to troll.
For me dealing with a nordic cavalry who had 4 sets of javelins was a unique experience when I first encountered such a thing as a noob.
You are just massively shortening the life-time of the MP mode with this call.

I am sorry TW but this is a wrong call and I am worried. At least bring it back for the other modes such as death match and battle.
Or just add a money system to cpt. mode, preset troop types shall stay but allow us to buy a better sword from the default and put sth like 3 options.

 

[Duh]

Even if that were true, which it doesn't appear to be judging from more recent post that are based on additional information, it is not a very good basis for decision making since people have not actually played the mode or know all of its details. All the should have accussations are also pointless and counterproductive. They are talking now - use it constructively.

It is true though. Non-competitive players don't wanna touch it. On the competitive side, just the existence of #nobattlenobks says enough, and that's really just the tip of the iceberg.

I would wait until Rhade has responded to this thread before passing that judgement. Various competitive players have expressed their interest and (at least more) satisfaction with the new information already.

That's totally wrong. Warband equipment gives you an array of possibilities with a simple interface that would require an absolutely insane amount of classes and perks. You can finetune your choices very precisely.

Absolutely not. I can easily code an interface that has a "class" of Vaegir Archer and lists all the equipment choices in a similar fashion to now with the cheap stuff as the basic "presets" and call everything else Perks.

The vast majority of builds are not competitively viable, and that's actually great. Most people aren't competing in anything.
People deliberately play suboptimal builds all the time. Joke weapons. No clothes. Weird "experimental" loadouts. NeoGK lets players go to battle topless with a straw hat and a pitchfork, and that's great. That's why it's killing the charm.

This is the only applicable argument here and I don't think that the majority of players will be upset about not being able to **** about with suboptimal builds in competitive matchmaking. Especially because the lack of suboptimal builds does not necessitate a lack of interesting builds.
-----------------
12 new replies have been posted. Well den.

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

But if someone just spams cav and then ignores your deathball by going to the other two flags, that would be an issue. The effectiveness of this would depend on the respawn/capture mechanics though.

Ye agreed but then that is similarly unsatisfying. Objectives are there to force fights, not to avoid them. It's a difficult balance and a lot of it comes from the fundamentals of how M&B plays, it just encourages even numbers in a fight.

The only solution we've ever thought up to have something more interesting than Battle is an attacker/defender mode, but it's similarly difficult to balance.

 

[Callum]

Okay, here is my feedback:
If TW is so worried about the balance issues they can exclude some stuff for some troop types, like they did in warband.
For example, excluding shields from archers or excluding better armor types for some troops etc.
For the naked people, as it was discussed in previoust topics, we agreed that it has massive disadvantages compared to its minor advantages so people who do that are doing it in order to troll.
For me dealing with a nordic cavalry who had 4 sets of javelins was a unique experience when I first encountered such a thing as a noob.
You are just massively shortening the life-time of the MP mode with this call.

I am sorry TW but this is a wrong call and I am worried. At least bring it back for the other modes such as death match and battle.
Or just add a money system to cpt. mode, preset troop types shall stay but allow us to buy a better sword from the default and put sth like 3 options.

This is exactly why we are going with preset classes, to give us greater control over what each unit type will have access to while ensuring that players always have a basic level of equipment. What you are asking for with your idea of a money system is no different than the perk system we have now. Furthermore we will have Deathmatch and some type of Battle / single life game mode, they just won't be hosted by us as MM servers.

Ye agreed but then that is similarly unsatisfying. Objectives are there to force fights, not to avoid them. It's a difficult balance and a lot of it comes from the fundamentals of how M&B plays, it just encourages even numbers in a fight.

The only solution we've ever thought up to have something more interesting than Battle is an attacker/defender mode, but it's similarly difficult to balance.

We are also fans of the idea of an asymmetrical single life game mode.

 

[Watly]

I'm really happy that we're finally given info on how the Bannerlord multiplayer will look like, but I have a question. The majority of the people that play multiplayer in warband do not play competitive. The most fun I've had with warband multiplayer, was taking some crazy build (naked with a great long axe or 20 javelins) and back door a castle or go wild on TDM.

To what degree will I still be able to do so in Bannerlord? The customization options to me is one of the biggest reasons that I'm still playing Warband. You have developed a fantastic customization system for single player and it would be amazing if it could also be used for the more casual game modes.

 

[CIIGES of the low lands]

Reasons not to include equipment customization:

The customization options to me is one of the biggest reasons that I'm still playing Warband.

 

[Scarf Ace]

Absolutely not. I can easily code an interface that has a "class" of Vaegir Archer and lists all the equipment choices in a similar fashion to now with the cheap stuff as the basic "presets" and call everything else Perks.

Do you honestly think that'll be more handy than just having an equipment selector? Do you really think you can nail down every loadout people might come up with? I strongly doubt it.

This is the only applicable argument here and I don't think that the majority of players will be upset about not being able to **** about with suboptimal builds in competitive matchmaking. Especially because the lack of suboptimal builds does not necessitate a lack of interesting builds.
-----------------
12 new replies have been posted. Well den.

Dude, ever played on a siege server? I'd say smart builds are damn near in the minority there, and it's probably not even due to player incompetence. The ugly old naked man with the greatsword is an icon of Warband. The ability to be ruthlessly silly is at the very core of what makes casual Warband MP what it is. Abandoning that in the name of "balance" and "streamlining" (and, sorry for the language, "Accessibility") to me is a huge mistake.

This is exactly why we are going with preset classes, to give us greater control over what each unit type will have access to while ensuring that players always have a basic level of equipment. What you are asking for with your idea of a money system is no different than the perk system we have now. Furthermore we will have Deathmatch and some type of Battle / single life game mode, they just won't be hosted by us as MM servers.

You don't need "greater control" outside of serious competitive play.

 

[Brandis.]

For all the people complaining about feedback: there's some irony there because this thread is literally for that purpose.

I too would have loved to see communication between TW and respected/skilled players, but there's still room for that, and I'm sure both parties want pros to test out the competitive mode(s) before it/they goes live. 

There really isn't much we could do to prevent this to be honest. We could prevent Steam family sharing so that they couldn't just hop on an alt account I guess, but if someone wants to buy the game again and play on another account there isn't much we can do about that. I will highlight this point with the rest of the team though to see what we can come up with.

At least to me, there's a difference between smurf accounts and alt accounts. A smurf is an account you intentionally keep in a lower MMR to troll and throw against lower ranked players; an alt account is a second account you might play differently on but still try to win. For example, maybe someone who picks up Bannerlord is excellent at archery and climbs to a high rank despite being horrible at infantry. If they went infantry at their current account's MMR, they'd basically be throwing, so they buy a second account to practice against similarly skilled infantry players.

 

[Duh]

I'm really happy that we're finally given info on how the Bannerlord multiplayer will look like, but I have a question. The majority of the people that play multiplayer in warband do not play competitive. The most fun I've had with warband multiplayer, was taking some crazy build (naked with a great long axe or 20 javelins) and back door a castle or go wild on TDM.

To what degree will I still be able to do so in Bannerlord? The customization options to me is one of the biggest reasons that I'm still playing Warband. You have developed a fantastic customization system for single player and it would be amazing if it could also be used for the more casual game modes.

Depends a lot on what customization options are available to a private server owner and whether or not unlocking "crazy" equipment options like using 5 javelin perks would require a modification of the game files or not. (I.e. do you need to download a mod or not.) Who knows, maybe servers will even be able to add n remove classes and perks like maps.

 

[yedrellow]

We are also fans of the idea of an asymmetrical single life game mode.

The thing I dont understand though is that these changes are clearly inspired by overwatch, but the game modes in that game encourage 6v6 team fights. It seems like by having 3 flags, Taleworlds is actively trying to prevent the 6v6 teamfight. I don't really understand why though, clearly Taleworlds problem with battle is that there are periods in which teamfights arent happening, so shouldn't the goal of any mode to be to create as many clean 6v6 teamfights as possible? Wouldn't this be better off done with some form of assault/defense game mode?

3 flags seems to be an incredibly clumsy way of fixing the issue of teamfights not happening often or quick enough.

I realise you might think that assault/defense game modes are hard to balance, but you have to look for balance in asymmetry. That is both teams should take turns attacking/defending.

Personally I'd prefer battle any day over assault/defense game modes, but assault would be better than weird 3 flag gameplay.

 

[Brandis.]

Depends a lot on what customization options are available to a private server owner and whether or not unlocking "crazy" equipment options would require a modification of the game files or not. (I.e. do you need to download a mod or not.)

It was said somewhere server settings don't allow you to create new perks without a mod.

However, with a server side mod that might be possible without a download.