Statement Regarding Plans For MP Vol.3

[Younes]

Well we made that recommendation like a year ago, when it would've been useful. Unfortunately we're at the point where the only people playing consistently are people that like the game (obviously). Only ~2 people on my steam friends list even play the game any more. If all the people who have a problem with the game aren't playing it, because they're waiting for the problems of the game, like the class system, to be fixed by the developers or modders; then what use are the results? Even on the forums, only a couple of people that posted regularly and gave massive and detailed responses in the beta section, and showed they knew what they were talking about, even post anymore. Seemingly they've almost all given up, or moved on.

Better late than never, but all you're going to get now is results that support/create confirmation bias, instead of the overwhelmingly negative response you have garnered over the past year.

Agree, the poll should have been done at the start of EA or the start of the beta when the players were actually present. I have countless number of friends who don't even bother checking on bannerlord.


Honestly i don't get what is going on with TW, the idea was proposed a while ago but now they're going to put it when 90% of the playerbase deserted and the only people playing, are people who like the game. The poll should have been done at start of EA were you would have had an actual representative poll.

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

Nobody cares, this is a video game. If we want realism, we might aswell die one time in Skirmish and our game gets uninstalled because we died. There is a certain line between irritating-realism and fun. I also dont quite get your point, people wore clothes, obviously? Not exactly sure what you mean, do you mean like unified troops? Because that's very debatable.

Re-read my post, the cheesiness comes from people min/maxing builds instead of creating believable archetypes. they don't need to be uniformed, I think having visual variety between the troops would be fine.

 

[Younes]

Re-read my post, the cheesiness comes from people min/maxing builds instead of creating believable archetypes. they don't need to be uniformed, I think having visual variety between the troops would be fine.

Except this could have been fixed by adding a system of premade classes for those who wish to not do this.

 

[Mabons]

Re-read my post, the cheesiness comes from people min/maxing builds instead of creating believable archetypes. they don't need to be uniformed, I think having visual variety between the troops would be fine.

Min maxing passively happens with the perk system too, for example I would never take anything but strong bow and strong arrows on an archer because that is how to maximise my ranged threat while not taking any melee weapon perks minimises my melee potential.

EDIT: Anyways this is all moot, it's not changing.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Except this could have been fixed by adding a system of premade classes for those who wish to not do this.

But this largely proves how irrelevant the choice of equipment is. Combat, servers, game mode - these are what matter. How you pick your equipment is such a minor concern compared to actually having a functional game.

NW was hugely popular without any equipment selection basically what-so-ever. It's not a key aspect of the gameplay and this is what bothers me. All this priority on the class system detracts from the things that actually matter - the things that are hopefully being improved in v1.5.0.

Until combat is functioning properly. servers are stable and MP functions and game modes are added; none of this discussion matters.

 

[DainMorgot]

Re-read my post, the cheesiness comes from people min/maxing builds instead of creating believable archetypes. they don't need to be uniformed, I think having visual variety between the troops would be fine.

This is a video game mate. A rather competitive video game when it comes to PvP. Competitive as in skill. Realism is good for cinematic story telling games, not for games in a pvp environment.

 

[Sundeki]

Re-read my post, the cheesiness comes from people min/maxing builds instead of creating believable archetypes.

There are many situations where people would not have been "equipped properly". The Battle of Stamford bridge is a good example, where the Norse army under Harald Hardrada, was caught by surprise by the Saxon army. The Norse, well equipped for the time period, could not put their armor on in time before the battle began. They picked up their weapons and fought unarmored, many mostly naked.

"Believable archetype" is dependant on your creativity, really. All states of clothing (or lack thereof) would've been seen on the battlefield for the Dark Age period, which is the historical period that Bannerlord's fictional space is loosely based upon. A "mix-maxed build" isn't historically inauthentic.

---

But this largely proves how irrelevant the choice of equipment is. Combat, servers, game mode - these are what matter. How you pick your equipment is such a minor concern compared to actually having a functional game.

NW was hugely popular without any equipment selection basically what-so-ever. It's not a key aspect of the gameplay and this is what bothers me. All this priority on the class system detracts from the things that actually matter - the things that are hopefully being improved in v1.5.0.

Until combat is functioning properly. servers are stable and MP functions and game modes are added; none of this discussion matters.

NW is the exception, because most troops of the period would've been similarly, perhaps almost identically equipped. Line Battles are about achieving homogeneity and conformity for the sake of the line battle itself. NW, as a gaming experience, is almost completely the opposite of what regular Mount & Blade is. All of the other popular multiplayer mods increased player agency. NW is the one exception that is far less relevant than people think.

If the game is not fun to play, then stable servers and more gamemodes don't really matter. First people have to enjoy the basics of what the game is. That means fixing the combat, and improving the core gameplay loop, which is highly dependent upon classes.

 

[Younes]

But this largely proves how irrelevant the choice of equipment is. Combat, servers, game mode - these are what matter. How you pick your equipment is such a minor concern compared to actually having a functional game.

NW was hugely popular without any equipment selection basically what-so-ever. It's not a key aspect of the gameplay and this is what bothers me. All this priority on the class system detracts from the things that actually matter - the things that are hopefully being improved in v1.5.0.

Until combat is functioning properly. servers are stable and MP functions and game modes are added; none of this discussion matters.

Armor and weapons are irrelevant in a game about warfare? Really?

Axios you are actually doing it on purpose at this point. NW didn't have equipment selection but it did have:

Artillery classes
Sappers
Medics
Sailors
Officer classes
Hornists
Bagpipes
Flutes
Drums
Flag bearers
...

And like it has been said for the 100th time, that you seem to always ignore on purpose, the Napoleonic wars had standardization unlike the medieval time period.

Your last point makes ZERO sense. You're saying that everything else matters except classes.

I'm talking to a brick wall

 

[jon01]

I like the new system, I find it tedious to have to go in and mix and match a bunch of weapon and armor choices in between lives. When I get enough gold I know I can easily switch to something strong like an elite archer or horseman without having to re-invent the wheel.

I do feel like, on most classes, I do have a choice to sufficiently customize them, I can pick between having thrown weapons/a shield/longer pikes/better armor/etc. and I can do so quickly. (maybe even save our preset choices, TW? )

To be honest I don't see the benefit of picking every piece of equipment one wears other than min/maxing which just makes the game feel kinda cheesy. I won't lie that cheesy feeling was pretty fun in warband especially paired with the last gen graphics, but this new game makes me feel a lot more immersed. The fact that the guy zig zagging and crouch spamming towards me is at least wearing pants while doing so helps a lot with that.

I would like to see the third perk slot AND perks be more impactful though, I think that would be a good improvement.

An improved equipment selection for Bannerlord could have included a better default loadout, so inexperienced players wouldn't be spawning in with the worst possible armour, and we wouldn't have to be worrying about spawning in with a Spiked Club accidentally, if we lost money on the previous round.

I found it fun selecting better pieces of equipment as I gained money in the specific class I was in the mood to play during any given play session, but with better default gear (i.e. an optimal setup for 1000 gold) it would be fine to continue playing with that, and not bother with the more expensive armour, or you could just select all the higher gear, if you wanted to, and the game would upgrade automatically.

Returning to equipment selection wouldn't mean returning to the exact setup of Warband without improvement.

 

[Younes]

Returning to equipment selection wouldn't mean returning to the exact setup of Warband without improvement.

This is too much for some people to understand

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

I found it fun selecting better pieces of equipment as I gained money in the specific class I was in the mood to play during any given play session, but with better default gear (i.e. an optimal setup for 1000 gold) it would be fine to continue playing with that, and not bother with the more expensive armour, or you could just select all the higher gear, if you wanted to, and the game would upgrade automatically.

If you did this then everyone would look the same. I find its a lot more interesting when you are playing as a culture and you have culture specific warriors running around on both teams, and you're forced to adapt to this new match up. If everyone was able to just tweak equipment based off of an initial build then we would just see META vs META warriors everywhere, no variety, no challenge to the player to adapt.

 

[Mabons]

If you did this then everyone would look the same

I'm talking to a brick wall

 

[AVRC]

Min maxing passively happens with the perk system too, for example I would never take anything but strong bow and strong arrows on an archer because that is how to maximise my ranged threat while not taking any melee weapon perks minimises my melee potential.

My personal least favorite are the Ranged unit perks at the moment. Expect some serious changes in the following patches.

 

[Mabons]

My personal least favorite are the Ranged unit perks at the moment. Expect some serious changes in the following patches.

???

 

[Sidhwen_Khorest]

My personal least favorite are the Ranged unit perks at the moment. Expect some serious changes in the following patches.

Nice, I totally agree with Mabons that ranged perks as they currently stand are pretty much always taken by me.

 

[DainMorgot]

If you did this then everyone would look the same. I find its a lot more interesting when you are playing as a culture and you have culture specific warriors running around on both teams, and you're forced to adapt to this new match up. If everyone was able to just tweak equipment based off of an initial build then we would just see META vs META warriors everywhere, no variety, no challenge to the player to adapt.

There is no adaptation because the factions have very clear strong/non-viable classes. Every match I play is literally the same, with some occasional changes that do not even certify as 'new adaptation' or have a big impact in the game. The META vs META you speak of, is already here and it's 10 times worse than Warband's. Are we even playing the same game?

 

[Greedalicious]

Illusion of choice was also a strong component of the warband system though. Lots of extremely marginal choices that made very little difference. Gloves that gave +2 armour or +3 etc...I agree with you to an extent. You could always play as an archer or cavalrymen whereas in bannerlord you cannot necessarily. However I believe that is a balance aspect and a symptom of the class system not being finished. You can see TW have had some thoughts along these lines by adding the 'slings' perks. Slings could take the role of a cheap archer class. I don't necessarily agree everyone should be able to play a horsemen all the time though; they are clearly meant to be power units in both campaign and in MP.

The fact that Warband had a Khergit problem proves that the Warband system was far from perfect. it needed to be changed and we are looking currently at a very basic iteration. The only fair comparison will be how the class system looks at launch compared to warband at launch.

Three perks slots with meaningful choices offers 27 iterations of every class. 7 classes gives us 189 potential play styles. Warband did not have this many builds of significant value. Gloves made no difference, boots made little difference (and were often ditched. Armour was broadly separated into 2-3 tiers per faction with minor differences within and helms were the same.

Weapons had the same issue but worse; we had 5 different types of swadian swords; all with barely different stats; and two which were actually worth taking (the best one and the free one). The fact was Warband was laden with pointless choices and was clunky to navigate. Switching between infantry and archer could take up to 30 seconds if you had an awkward gold value and wanted to min-max your options. It was not a system that was viable for a modern market and Warband MP struggled to establish a large playerbase (a loyal playerbase yes but not a large one). Something had/has to change. Now right now the bannerlord system is not working as intended but then it isn't finished; it's not a fair comparison.

The illusion of choice as you call it was actually progression. If I played well, I was allowed to upgrade my equipment. I could pick new gloves, a better weapon, extra weapons, stronger shields, whatever I could afford. The upgrades didnt make me unkillable, it gave me a minor upgrade which always felt good, especially on casual play where you could easily rack up more money and look more badass. The ones with the cool items earned it, it wasnt given to them for free. It also gave me the choice to decide for myself what I wanted. If I wanted to buy 4 glaives and bring them to my teammates, I could.

I dont know what slings can add to the game besides a casual part, which is fine, but it cant really be a cheap archer, as archers already have a cheap version costing about 110 gold. Doubt they'll add more classes since right now theres 7 per faction.

Khergits was a problem because you cant balance horse archery properly. Not only that, theyre incredibly unfun and frustrating to fight against, and after launch they werent balanced at all. Nobody is saying warbands system was perfect in every way, but the things they did perfect is for some reason removed from Bannerlord and it doesnt make sense.

3 perks wont make much of a difference, especially if it'll be a passive. If I have say, 50 gold left, can I buy my archer a shield? No. So Battania archer is basically screwed against most other factions who get shields and couch lances, as he has zero counter play against it, other than hoping the cavalry screws up. Warband fixed this by letting us drop equipment for the archers ourselves, making drops between players and making sure everyone on the team is optimally equipped.
Even if Warband didnt have armor of significant value, you built up your gold and you could feel like you accomplished something. If I didnt want to wear boots, I'd just right click. Helmet? Right click. My character, my choice.
Helmets are definitly not nearly the same, but lets say for your argument it is, the designs are different, so if I didnt like this helmet, I'd pick that helmet. Yeah it might cost me more, but thats my choice to make. "But skins!" Yeah but if I have to buy a skin that already exists in singleplayer, I'll be angry. I already bought that skin when I bought the game.
You could pick equipment somewhat based on the enemy you're fighting, and definitly based on factions. Hmmm well they have this amazing archer, so I better get a good helmet, or we're fighting Nords on a closed map, chances are I'll be pushed into melee so a good melee weapon is key here. This is basically removed from Bannerlord, and perks wont change that.

Swadia was always the most boring infantry class for me, since they only have swords. Their swords were pretty decent though and the swadia arsenal was filled with amazing tools besides that. The long awlpike, great cavs, great crossbows, great cheap armor.
But if the swords are all the same, why does it matter which one you pick? Most players wont really notice a difference, so just pick whichever one you can afford. Its not pointless for everyone, so let the ones who want to maximize efficiency have their toys.
I dont think its hard to navigate, you click the box and you get your options listed. You could pick your equipment within seconds. Switching between classes took a bit longer, which is why ZHG had a mod which saved your equipment selections. Sadly it didnt save after you left the game, but Taleworld would surely have mananged to make that save. Problem solved, giving everyone what they wanted. Call of Duty has a bunch of options on your class right? You pick your perks + main weapon + sidearm + upgrades on the guns? (Been a while since I played CoD) so thats easy to do but warbands system is difficult? Warbands system is arguably better as I can easily change my setup ingame on the fly, with just a few clicks.

I agree Warband didnt reach a wide audience, but its a 10 year old game with bad graphics and at the time, a niche market. Comparing Warband with Bannerlord in popularity isnt fair, alot has happened in 10 years. Warbands class system was certainly not the issue of not reaching a wider audience.

Note: Havent read the last 3 pages yet, just wanted to respond to this.

 

[vfkaseke]

I like the new system, I find it tedious to have to go in and mix and match a bunch of weapon and armor choices in between lives. When I get enough gold I know I can easily switch to something strong like an elite archer or horseman without having to re-invent the wheel.

I do feel like, on most classes, I do have a choice to sufficiently customize them, I can pick between having thrown weapons/a shield/longer pikes/better armor/etc. and I can do so quickly. (maybe even save our preset choices, TW? )

To be honest I don't see the benefit of picking every piece of equipment one wears other than min/maxing which just makes the game feel kinda cheesy. I won't lie that cheesy feeling was pretty fun in warband especially paired with the last gen graphics, but this new game makes me feel a lot more immersed. The fact that the guy zig zagging and crouch spamming towards me is at least wearing pants while doing so helps a lot with that.

I would like to see the third perk slot AND perks be more impactful though, I think that would be a good improvement.

I totally agree with most of what you say dude. So many people are complaining about the new class system, but to me it just makes the process of playing more streamlined and fun. i don't like fidgeting with the small details of what different armors and swords do, and a general choice is definitely enough for me.

On the other hand I play captain mode, and everyone on the forums seems to think it's inferior to skirmish, which I just find kinda boring and dull in comparison. The forums in general seem to be very toxic towards anyone who comes in with a differing opinion to the general mindset of the old warband players, and I think that really just keeps any new forum users outside of the community. There's a lot of differing opinions to that of the forums in multiple different discords and even on the multiple bannerlord reddits.

My personal least favorite are the Ranged unit perks at the moment. Expect some serious changes in the following patches.

Please don't take my 2h axes from the hunters

 

[Brandis.]

The game misses a sense of meaningful progression. I feel like pushing for purchased perks between rounds (or ideally another system on top of the starting perks) would improve gameplay a lot by giving progression through rounds and rewards for kills or assists.

I also still have a massive problem with the respawn system and game-flow in Skirmish. After 1.5 I hope the combat is in a cohesive enough state to warrant experiments with things like gold earned, class costs, max gold, respawn timers, wave respawns, respawn locations, and so on.

I’d also like to see an integrated side swap as the game simply can’t be balanced for ranked without that. Even if every faction had a 50% winrate, factions will fight differently in each matchup and on each map, skewing that 50%. Maybe it would make games too long, and there’s the issue of tie breakers, but it should be looked into.

 

[Indi4N]

@AVRC Do you think we'll be able to see a patch going on live servers in following 2 weeks? Like spectator mode would be pretty juicy since there's a semi-finals already on BEAST tournament.