taleworlds does not care about the experienced players multiplayer scene

[Leifr Eiríksson]

I also have over 1500 hours in Warband MP alone, and while I liked the customisation of Warband's item selection system, I can see that the potential of the Class system outweighs what was previously on offer.

Many of us have just as many, if not more, hours in Warband's MP Callum.
When I visit this forum, the common theme seems to be that any member who has come from a competitive clan, or played extensively, has an intense dislike of the current class system - other issues aside. It beggars belief that TaleWorlds spent time and energy in taking onboard the views of Warband veterans, and then threw it out the window for something 'professional'. I am yet to meet a player who actively enjoys the current set up, and who isn't endorsing a return to the original equipment selection.

Since you are here, or were, may we enquire as to what potentials you believe the new class system has over the original?

 

[Gamelin]

Personally I like the new system just because I'm actually trying out different things this time around instead of just defaulting to heavy armor two hander as soon as I get the gold for it.

It's an entire different experience then warband, but it does feel nice to go for something else then the Great Sword 2400g set on TG. However, I still think warbands system works perfectly for deathmatch.

 

[_Osiris_]

im getting real Deja vu here did none of you people read the beta forums before the EA and see the giant threads about the new class system and the long responses already from callum etc ^^ you are beating a dead horse guys. They wouldn't change the class system when alpha and beta testers where whining about it, they sure wont change it now its in EA

 

[HexanV]

It's an entire different experience then warband, but it does feel nice to go for something else then the Great Sword 2400g set on TG. However, I still think warbands system works perfectly for deathmatch.

Exactly, a lot of us mentioned before that this new system has it is place in captain and skirmish, these game modes are more competitive, and it is crucial to have proper balance, but for (T)DM and siege it should be optional, maybe not for official servers if you guys really strict about it, just give us the option to do so when we can finally host our own servers.

 

[Younes]

In my opinion, Warband's system was quite limited. There are optimal purchases that you should make, with the majority of gear being simply ignored. It is also possible to eliminate most of the drawbacks of any of the classes (inf, ranged, cav) by swapping gear with teammates (and please don't get me wrong, I love the teamwork and communication involved in gear swapping, I'm just not a fan that there are few, if any, downsides to it).

The class system presents you with a meaningful choice that you have to make with each spawn, taking into account your own team composition and that of the enemy. This choice can then be further tailored through perks.

Obviously, perks and classes still need some work, there is no doubt about that, but eventually, I think they will provide players with a fairer and ultimately better MP experience.

I feel that the only missing ingredient is the visual customisation that Warband offers, allowing players to inject their own personality into their character.

The way i see it, the perk system is not centered around the battles multiplayer were known for. Not for 100vs100s but for those petty skirmish games. This is not the main appeal there was to warband. This system works for skirmish and captain but it does NOT work for DM,TDM,Duel,..

How exactly does meaningful choices differ to warband? Are you not able to do meaningful choices in warband? From what i see you are able to do more meaningful choices in warband because of how flexible you were with your gold. You could take things you WANTED instead of taking things you don't want with this current perk system.

But again i'm repeating the same thing that has been repeated and debunked months ago. I'm not going further because honestly it's always the same with the class system. The flawed perk system has been dissected months ago, we came to the conclusion the perk system is only a viable system for skirmish and captain but yet here we are again.

It's an entire different experience then warband, but it does feel nice to go for something else then the Great Sword 2400g set on TG. However, I still think warbands system works perfectly for deathmatch.

This is my worry. Deathmatch is the mode i would always play and it will be ruined with the current perk system.

This is something that we might explore later down the line during EA.

I'm getting a flashback of some thread i wrote months ago, weird.

Exactly, a lot of us mentioned before that this new system has it is place in captain and skirmish, these game modes are more competitive, and it is crucial to have proper balance, but for (T)DM and siege it should be optional, maybe not for official servers if you guys really strict about it, just give us the option to do so when we can finally host our own servers.

This is the conclusion most people have done. Perk system has its flaws but it fits specific gamemodes where it could be used a lot better then warband. I am strictly attacking the perk system for it flaws in specific gamemodes, despite it flaws it can fit for skirmish and captain pretty well with some significant changes.

Coming to the conclusion that the perk system can fit in the game is something people have said months ago. Yet some people strongly believe that being critical about the perk system means we are completely against it being anywhere in the game.

 

[Lincoln_Hawk]

its quite apparent the laziness and ****ty planning that has been put forth. whoever is running the show decided a one size fits all approach should work here and the fact is that it doesnt. its no surprise with the development taking this long that these same types of ****ty decisions have also been made probably to save time from what was taking them forever to begin with. this is really unacceptable and a **** you to the players

 

[Noviix]

In my opinion, Warband's system was quite limited. There are optimal purchases that you should make, with the majority of gear being simply ignored. It is also possible to eliminate most of the drawbacks of any of the classes (inf, ranged, cav) by swapping gear with teammates (and please don't get me wrong, I love the teamwork and communication involved in gear swapping, I'm just not a fan that there are few, if any, downsides to it).

The class system presents you with a meaningful choice that you have to make with each spawn, taking into account your own team composition and that of the enemy. This choice can then be further tailored through perks.

Obviously, perks and classes still need some work, there is no doubt about that, but eventually, I think they will provide players with a fairer and ultimately better MP experience.

I feel that the only missing ingredient is the visual customisation that Warband offers, allowing players to inject their own personality into their character.

I suppose I can see your point, however, on the flip side I see the class system as limited. While I understand the gear swapping argument I feel as if that could be avoided with a stat system similar to that of Warband. Archers shouldn't be as good with one handers as a melee class just as the melee class shouldn't be able to use a bow that well. Cavalry in my opinion is the only class that should be able to ride majority of horses and utilize polearms on them adeptly, or bows if they're a faction like Khuzait and pick that class. I feel as if the class system in it's current state does not satisfy fulfilling drawbacks. A good chunk of the high level archer classes are huge melee contenders and carry some of the best weapons on the field a lot of the time, i.e Palatine Guard w/ Imperial Polearm, Fiann w/ Highlander Sword, Veteran is just a good class all around, etc. Where's their drawback? A lot of melee infantry are armed with javelins, a shield, a polearm, and a sword/axe, again they've got just about everything they need but can also pick up a crossbow/bow or get on a horse and basically fulfill the role of another class. My point is the classes just don't feel terribly different in terms of strengths and weaknesses and if anything I think Warband's three role system emphasized it more. The cav class was meant to be on a horse and could ride the higher tier horses while the other two could not, the archers could use the bows while the other two could not, and melee classes were the best swordsmen on the map no doubt and could use high tier two-handers w/ heavier armor. It was pretty structured.

Unfortunately I don't think many people are looking at team comp when picking a class, maybe in Skirmish but rarely. People typically will pick the class that is easiest to get points with and then pick their actual desired class. Like on Empire I don't pick recruit thinking it'll benefit my team, I pick recruit knowing it's the cheapest and I get an OK loadout to go attempt to get Legionary with. If I'm on Sturgia I just pick the Berserker as soon as possible knowing I'll likely be able to earn enough for a higher tier class, or worst case default back to Berserker. It's not really about team comp for a lot of people especially on a casual level, people want to play what they want to play. In Skirmish/Captain I get it, but every other mode it feels like a detriment. If Battle were in the game, it'd feel infinitely more stale than in Warband.

I understand and have confidence that the class system will improve, however, I don't know if I am ready to say I agree that that's the direction I think MP should be taken, at least not completely. A lot of the MP aspect of Mount and Blade is the community/casual/free flowing aspect of it. The more match made MP is, the less of an appeal it has to the aforementioned idea of MP that a lot of people have.

The visual customization would be awesome don't get me wrong, however, that also goes against a lot of the points initially made to keep the class system around. Now I'm not saying it can't be done, but, if one class can look 4 different ways it may take away from that "see a class and know exactly what it does" kind of gameplay. Especially with varying armor perks which would have different visual choices. I just think it's leading into a slippery competitive vs. casual slope.

 

[Lincoln_Hawk]

I suppose I can see your point, however, on the flip side I see the class system as limited. While I understand the gear swapping argument I feel as if that could be avoided with a stat system similar to that of Warband. Archers shouldn't be as good with one handers as a melee class just as the melee class shouldn't be able to use a bow that well. Cavalry in my opinion is the only class that should be able to ride majority of horses and utilize polearms on them adeptly, or bows if they're a faction like Khuzait and pick that class. I feel as if the class system in it's current state does not satisfy fulfilling drawbacks. A good chunk of the high level archer classes are huge melee contenders and carry some of the best weapons on the field a lot of the time, i.e Palatine Guard w/ Imperial Polearm, Fiann w/ Highlander Sword, Veteran is just a good class all around, etc. Where's their drawback? A lot of melee infantry are armed with javelins, a shield, a polearm, and a sword/axe, again they've got just about everything they need but can also pick up a crossbow/bow or get on a horse and basically fulfill the role of another class. My point is the classes just don't feel terribly different in terms of strengths and weaknesses and if anything I think Warband's three role system emphasized it more. The cav class was meant to be on a horse and could ride the higher tier horses while the other two could not, the archers could use the bows while the other two could not, and melee classes were the best swordsmen on the map no doubt and could use high tier two-handers w/ heavier armor. It was pretty structured.

Unfortunately I don't think many people are looking at team comp when picking a class, maybe in Skirmish but rarely. People typically will pick the class that is easiest to get points with and then pick their actual desired class. Like on Empire I don't pick recruit thinking it'll benefit my team, I pick recruit knowing it's the cheapest and I get an OK loadout to go attempt to get Legionary with. If I'm on Sturgia I just pick the Berserker as soon as possible knowing I'll likely be able to earn enough for a higher tier class, or worst case default back to Berserker. It's not really about team comp for a lot of people especially on a casual level, people want to play what they want to play. In Skirmish/Captain I get it, but every other mode it feels like a detriment. If Battle were in the game, it'd feel infinitely more stale than in Warband.

I understand and have confidence that the class system will improve, however, I don't know if I am ready to say I agree that that's the direction I think MP should be taken, at least not completely. A lot of the MP aspect of Mount and Blade is the community/casual/free flowing aspect of it. The more match made MP is, the less of an appeal it has to the aforementioned idea of MP that a lot of people have.

The visual customization would be awesome don't get me wrong, however, that also goes against a lot of the points initially made to keep the class system around. Now I'm not saying it can't be done, but, if one class can look 4 different ways it may take away from that "see a class and know exactly what it does" kind of gameplay. Especially with varying armor perks which would have different visual choices. I just think it's leading into a slippery competitive vs. casual slope.

Some good points here. I also forgot to mention myself i find myself playing archer more, which i NEVER did in warband because i enjoy melee a lot more. But im picking archer because some of these classes have better/more versatile loadouts armor/weapon wise opposed to the actual melee classes. its a joke and people on here are saying its better lol. HOW?

 

[ecartsiger]

Well since the armor is no longer location based, there is no point in armor selection so they just removed it completally. What a disgrace.

 

[Scarf Ace]

I also have over 1500 hours in Warband MP alone, and while I liked the customisation of Warband's item selection system, I can see that the potential of the Class system outweighs what was previously on offer.

Then bloody explain why it's so good! As the thread linked in my signature shows, the reasoning you have provided so far is piss poor. Hell, many of the goals you stated are even fulfilled better in Warband!

And of course, rather than replying to anyone providing reasons why the current system is bad, or for example responding to Noudelle's countless excellent threads, Callum chooses to respond to someone arguing based on hours played instead.
I mean, come the hell on.

 

[Wolfsblut]

How can you have potential in something that is extremely limited.

The more simple its hold, the more accessible it is, the more people will play it.

I'd just wished perks wouldn't have left their multiplayer cage.

*silently leaves the forum part he is useless in anyway*

 

[Callum]

Many of us have just as many, if not more, hours in Warband's MP Callum.

It was a direct response to the OP saying the same thing with the intention of highlighting that we both have the same playtime yet have opposing opinions.

Then bloody explain why it's so good!

Someone already quoted my response to that question. Scroll up the page (3rd reply above yours).

 

[MikeDude]

its quite apparent the laziness and ****ty planning that has been put forth. whoever is running the show decided a one size fits all approach should work here and the fact is that it doesnt. its no surprise with the development taking this long that these same types of ****ty decisions have also been made probably to save time from what was taking them forever to begin with. this is really unacceptable and a **** you to the players

You are making youself look like a joke the way you speak.. And it's not gonna help you get your point across either..

I agree with Callum but do hope we get a chance to see a system which is more free in a sort of Death Match mode, perhaps even the current ****ty team deathmatch game mode.

 

[Falrock]

I also have over 1500 hours in Warband MP alone, and while I liked the customisation of Warband's item selection system, I can see that the potential of the Class system outweighs what was previously on offer.

While I respect your opinion I will say that it's not opinion of the majority. I think some sort of compromise should be reached, perhaps where there are two modes a server host can choose from.

One mode could be the current class system and another mode could be a more customisable class system which was similar to Warband. That way everyone would win.

I think it would take a great deal of players out of native if it had to be modded in to satisfy people. Judging from polls I've observed, it could take up to 70-75% of players away from native if a mod for this were to be released.

 

[Maroon]

Before I start: this isn't aimed specifically at you, Callum. You're a great guy, but I'm just so fed up about your company's stance on this issue.

It is also possible to eliminate most of the drawbacks of any of the classes (inf, ranged, cav) by swapping gear with teammates (and please don't get me wrong, I love the teamwork and communication involved in gear swapping, I'm just not a fan that there are few, if any, downsides to it).

This was only ever a thing in highly competitive matches like group tournaments.

The class system presents you with a meaningful choice that you have to make with each spawn, taking into account your own team composition and that of the enemy. This choice can then be further tailored through perks.

This is only useful in Skirmish and Captain.

Why is it that you guys are focusing so awfully much on small scale combat? As Younes said, 6v6 is not what people play this game for, and exchanging a game mechanic that works better for larger battles (because it's harder to balance on a small scale) with a system that only works decently for small battles. Singleplayer is completely designed to lead players towards massive battles. All of Taleworlds' promotional material since 2013 has been focused on big battles. Australian siege servers are constantly filled with people with 300+ pings because those are the only siege servers in the server browser. No more than 10% of the matchmaking queue at any time is for Skirmish or Captain.
Almost everyone wants to play big game modes, so why why why why why is the multiplayer system balanced around 6v6?!

Also, why was this one of your arguments in favour of the class system:

[From the beta premade class discussion]

• We wanted to see fully armored knights AND peasants on the same battlefield and they should NOT be equal in power.

Why do you add choices to a system that are designed to be inferior and frustrating, when that system is supposed to be based on "meaningful choice". Adding peasants to the gamemode just gives players the opportunity to troll their teammates by picking a class that's worthless. That's not a meaningful choice, that's suicide. And yes, it gives you more respawns in Skirmish, but if you can't touch your enemies because they get 40+ more armor than you, those respawns mean rather little.

And finally:

There are optimal purchases that you should make, with the majority of gear being simply ignored.

Every class had a combination of items that was objectively best, yes. However, you needed to work for that. The amount of gold you started with wasn't enough to get everything that's best, so you needed to compromise (make meaningful choices). And then, if you did choose to get the best gear, you got less gold for kills, and you lost a lot more gold once you died. That's balanced. That includes meaningful choices.
Now, the equipment and gold system had major drawbacks: it's unintuitive, it didn't allow you to work together with your team to get a good composition. But those drawbacks could have been fixed by simply improving the system without throwing it out the window. There were already classes in Warband: give each an icon, and use the current system to show to your team what class everyone picked.

---

To summarize: in 9 months, Taleworlds has only managed to produce a handful of reasons for the class system that haven't been a contradiction to their other arguments for the system, or that haven't been proven by the community to be false reasons. Yet we're still at exactly the same point: Taleworlds just saying "no this is better".

 

[ThunderonCZ]

As a veteran from competetive scene I can say that I dont hate to much on the current class system. Warband over time build its meta anyway in competetive scene. I remember using same loadout over and over again in every match.
Right now the class system is not ideal but it has its potential.
Custom loadout only make sense in custom for fun games. Which I know is important to some but for not as much for me personaly.

 

[Falrock]

I would like to add that no matter which side of the fence you sit on, on this issue. That it's not appropriate to get emotional about it and begin yelling or talking down to people on the forums. You wouldn't talk to people like that in real life, it's not going to get your point across or change anyones minds by acting like that.

So let's all relax and remember that we all care about this game and respect your fellows input. Even if it doesn't align with your own.

 

[Drithyl]

It is also possible to eliminate most of the drawbacks of any of the classes (inf, ranged, cav) by swapping gear with teammates (and please don't get me wrong, I love the teamwork and communication involved in gear swapping, I'm just not a fan that there are few, if any, downsides to it).

This point is moot. Bannerlord's system also allows swapping gear among teammates, as well as picking everything from the ground. In fact, it's even more effective than in Warband because every class seems skilled at everything, i.e. a normal archer can ride an armored cataphract horse. There are no drawbacks currently to picking a class or the other besides the armor itself, which is not a huge drawback when even archer classes come in heavily armored tiers.

 

[Younes]

As a veteran from competetive scene I can say that I dont hate to much on the current class system. Warband over time build its meta anyway in competetive scene. I remember using same loadout over and over again in every match.
Right now the class system is not ideal but it has its potential.
Custom loadout only make sense in custom for fun games. Which I know is important to some but for not as much for me personaly.

Exactly, it make sense for custom games which are supposed to be FUN, not tryharding. Mount and blade multiplayer has lost ALL of its charm in bannerlord

 

[Lincoln_Hawk]

You are making youself look like a joke the way you speak.. And it's not gonna help you get your point across either..

I agree with Callum but do hope we get a chance to see a system which is more free in a sort of Death Match mode, perhaps even the current ****ty team deathmatch game mode.

i dont really give a **** how i talk. i am stating facts and thats all that matters. you are a sheep and a joke by supporting bad decisions and must not know how things work in the real world. taleworlds simplified the game for marketing and sales. they sold out. plain and simple