Why the new system is better than Warband's:
- Prevents snowballing.
In WB a losing team had to start over with 1000 gold each while the enemy team gears up. A losing team in BL can save up the gold by not spawning when it's not necessary and make a comeback in the next round, so there's never an equipment gap between teams, only a spawn lives gap and it's not significant and can be mitigated with smart play. This makes that the overall skill of the team becomes the most important factor in deciding who's gonna win.
- Allows for easier balancing.
It all comes down to simple math. In WB the devs had to take into account 8 variables that were the equipment slots for each class in every faction. Now it's only 2 variables - much less randomness to deal with if you want to balance the classes. It's simple math, just do the number of permutations available for both systems and you'll see that BL is easier to balance by orders of magnitude, despite having 6 classes per faction.
- Ease of use.
In Warband all the competitive teams used standard equipment anyways, so the new system just made it easier for us: instead of clicking many times to pick the proper equipment for each of the 8 slots, you just click once to pick the class, and two more times to pick the necessary perks.
- Uniformity.
It's just aesthetically pleasing to see a team composed of properly dressed characters. I will agree though that it's also pleasing to see a band of brigands each dressed according to their ability and taste, but imo it's a mod territory. If they had the old system implemented for say a team deathmatch or some other mode that wasn't ment to be competitive, I'd say it fit perfectly.
- Encourages competitive play.
All the points above boil down to this one. With classes that bring order and regularity it's much easier to get into competitive play from every standpoint, be it balancing or ease of use. It grants a potential to expand the competitive community far beyond what Warband was ever capable of. And I think it was precisely their aim when they designed this system, because for me everything points to exactly that.
There is merit to both systems, it really depends on what you expect from it. You can't simply say that one is better than the other, because in many ways they are polar opposites with different goals. The old system would be perfect for non-competitive gamemodes or mods, but for competitive play the new system makes more sense.
1) Snowballing remains an issue, particularly once one side is able to afford multiple lives as top tier troops. At this point, it becomes almost impossible for the team with weaker troops and equal lives to win against a competent team with the same number of lives but better troops. The effect of armour is so dramatic in this game that is grants you the ability to take 3 or 4 more hits than a low-mid armoured unit, so multiple lives as heavy armoured troops is a massive deal. In contrast, Warband armour did not grant you that much of an advantage. With base competitive gear (1000 gold), as an infantry, you could expect to die in 2-3 hits and it would largely depend on the weapon of the opponent whether it was 2 or 3. With mail armour, that changed from 2-4, with it being possible for high damage weapons to kill you in 2 hits but in 90% of cases it being 3-4 hits to take you out. In some rare cases, against poorly angled hits or weak weapons, it was possible to tank 5 hits with mail. These are fairly reasonable numbers, and almost all factions (rhodoks, nords, sarranids) had access to powerful 1h weapons which could shred armour quite effectively. The snowball effect was not that dramatic, and even factions like vaegirs and swadia could win comfortably against armour if they just played to their strengths (archers and cavalry respectively). Crucially, mail armour meant taking 1-2 hits more than regular armour. In Bannerlord, the high tier armour grants 3-4 hits more than regular armour, which is why the snowballing "problem" has been made artificially in Bannerlord by virtue of how strong armour is. If the effect of armour was lessened, then any theoretical "snowballing problem" would cease to exist with the Warband gear system in Bannerlord. If only moderately better pieces of armour were affordable in competitive matches then the problem is gone. At the same time, those much better armour pieces could still exist at a far higher price which would only be affordable on siege, TDM or custom servers.
2) The maths suggests that it SHOULD be easier to balance a class system, but is it? Fundamentally, TW have failed to balance the system in Bannerlord - something which is caused in large part by trying to use the same classes for every mode - and the Warband system would actually be easier to balance. This is because there are not actually 8 variables as you suggest. What impact do gloves have? Or boots? Or the 4th weapon slot? These things do not make a major impact; in Warband, only the helmet, body armour and first 3 weapon slots (1h melee, shield, spear) really matter. In SP there is tiered armour and weapons, which would actually make balancing a Warband-style gear system for MP even easier. Just give each faction access to their tier 1-3 weapons and armour with their base gold and their tier 4-5 weapons and armour within upgrade range. I don't see how that is difficult to balance, particularly as you could just adjust individual weapon and armour values as necessary to fine-tune the balance - something which is more difficult to identify and deal with in a class system. Also, 6 perks for 8 classes = 48 items per faction + 1 armour value per class = 56 values that need balancing per faction (the true number is higher since there are starting weapon values too). Let's say we had the Warband system with 1-4 pieces of gear per slot (that were feasibly affordable in competitive, there could be more for casual modes), and we count the head, body and 3 weapon slots as important. That's 4 armour options for each slot, and let's say 4 weapon options for each slot - that's 20 important values that need balancing per class. x3 this number for the 3 classes (infantry, ranged, cavalry) and you arrive at 60 important values per faction, almost exactly the same number as there is for the Bannerlord system. The true number is higher including gloves, boots and a 4th weapon slot, but fundamentally these things are not that important to the gameplay. The difference is that this way, people get to customise and craft their builds, as well as develop their own metas, styles and habits, whereas a class system has very specific "good" and "bad" perks. If the gear items were marked according to their tier, as they are in SP, it would be even easier for newer players to understand and use the system as the tiers would serve as advice on which weapons and armour to use or upgrade to. Ultimately, I'd prefer an enhanced version of the Warband system, with multiple weapon types accessible to each faction (sort of like the Rhodok selection in MP), even though it would be harder to balance. Giving room for individual preference and style is important, even if it cannot be theoretically balanced as "perfectly" (although TW have failed at this) as a class system can be. MOBAs have hundreds of items and manage to facilitate individual preference alongside metas and sometimes broken builds - because that's the price you pay for customisation, individualism and variety.
3) This is irrelevant, it takes me ~5 seconds to select my gear in Warband (
as you can see here) and it's the same for most competitive players that have decided what gear to take before the match is live. This problem could be solved with presets anyway, something which would let people craft their own "classes" and just select them when they load in.
4) You claim everyone was taking the same gear in Warband, but then state that uniformity is an advantage of Bannerlord's class system? If everyone was taking the same gear in Warband then didn't they all look the same? Literally contradicting yourself, at least regarding competitive play. Don't see how it's a problem for people in TDM or Siege to be wearing different gear based on how well they are doing, but that is an opinion I guess.
5) Adding the ability to create preset classes of your own alongside the Warband gear selection system also solves this problem, because it means that TW can add "default" classes that new players can pick that are viable. Default classes new players can play, but can freely customise each slot if they want, and the ability for players to make their own presets in the armoury, but can freely customise each slot in game if they want. This would solve any accessibility issue and would still give room for individuals to tailor their gear to be how they want it to be as they learnt what weapons and armour they liked to use and what they didn't like to use.
Of course neither is objectively "better", but I think there are more advantages to the Warband-style gear system than to the class system. To me, the class system feels bland and uninspired, copied from every other generic MP game on the market and with no individual flair. The Warband system was inspired by CS, sure, but it took it a step further with customisation for every armour and weapon slot, whereas the class system in Bannerlord looks like something straight out of Call of Duty. Even COD4 has more customisation options than Bannerlord. The Warband system was not perfect, but it was fairly unique and gave players the freedom to choose how they wanted to play. Enhancing and building on that system would, I think, have been far better than discarding it for a generic system.
