This is terrible if you ask me, they are adding something that in the future will be removed. Instead of spending time developing that why have they not instead decided to implement the server restart or next map that warband had.I agree that was dumb. Though it got removed; just like block delay to be fair.
Also thank the old gods for this at least...
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Reminder that even with an overwhelming negative response to the MP, Taleworlds won't change any fundamental design decision.
- Thread starter Younes
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I haven't tested this yet - but I presume this is what this is? Just with a loading screen while the next map boots up? This is what we had in warband (just the score screen).
Class system could feel better if they added more classes (medium infantry, less generic troops such as unique minor factions, and “fun” classes such as peasants with meme perks or classes with siege in mind to enable specific playstyles). I don’t know the SP equipment but there should be a wealth of resources there.
That would cover a lot of bases for customization where even if people aren’t given full equipment freedom, they’re still able to find some unique ways to play.
TW seems opposed to a complete overhaul, but just adding some classes like this would go a long way.
By next server i would suppose they mean the current one is ending. So instead of putting you behind the loading to the lobby, going to the tab, and selecting server again they decided to do it in the game itself.
But let's be honest, if you are playing a server such as Minisiege, Mountandsiege or any other DLC/Native server, you're only going to leave when you are done with playing or intended on leaving in the first place. The issue the servers have in bannerlord is that they made people do the extra steps because they want to continue playing.
Game-mode specific perks are already a tacit admission their system has failed on its initial grounds, as part of the reason they made a class system was so it was the same across game modes. It's the correct decision to adjust this of course, but it still shows they are struggling with something that is just a huge own goal when there are more pressing issues.
I don't think the 3rd perk is going to help anything either, it's just going to make it even harder to balance, something they already struggle with.
I agree, especially for casual modes like Siege or TDM it would be an easy win. Considering how long it takes them to add battle and duel though, I imagine the class system is too integral and too inflexible for them to just add fun stuff like this unfortunately.
Agree and agreed. It is a backtrack - but it is also the correct choice. As for balance... well make the game fun first then we will worry about balance.
I must admit I am surprised and disappointed the vlandian peasants never got a donkey mount option
I also wouldn't be against a 'lord' class. Just a ridiculously overpriced class for each faction that uses all the sexy noble gear from singleplayer. Doesn't have to be viable - just fun for TDM.
... I also long ago proposed a Minor Faction system where each game your faction is randomly assigned an additional class from one of the minor factions. Would be a great way to mix up the typical faction dynamics; even if they are costly by comparison to regular classes.
DainMorgot
Sergeant
I know this is a joke, but
This picture says everything. You can defend TW and be a white knight for all you want regarding classes and combat, the numbers do not lie. The game is disliked.
True it depends how it’s set up. You’d assume that TW could add more classes but based on other stuff it might require a huge backend rework.
A unique lord or king class would be fun, it would be cool to make it limited as well, such as there could only be one lord at a time. I bet people would like trying to protect or kill them.
By that logic DainMorgot;
And warband is often on sale for a few quid; whereas Bannerlord remains expensive. Not even to mention players might be prohibited from playing bannerlord due to system requirements. As you said "the Numbers do not lie"....
....
Is Bannerlord singleplayer 3x better then warbands? ... or is there perhaps more going on....?
Maybe taking a picture of player counts doesn't really get to the detail of why bannerlords MP retention is so low. I would never suggest that bannerlords increased SP player count makes it directly superior to Warband as it stands.
Last edited:
I am fine with the extra step. It's a step in the right direction and even though we can debate if there would be a better alternative, you have a case here where the devs obviously listened and give you the demanded option - a privileged one as well, saving your spot, if I understood this right - to stay on the same server for the next iteration.
You get what you wanted and you have an extra step. Unconvenient? Yes. Still fulfilling what you wanted? Yes.
We will see how it will play out on private servers once they are there. I assume the server restart has a reasoning with the way they run their servers. No idea honestly, but you get the feature which you want imo.
To refer to Einar, since he quoted me:
I do not agree that every option like this should be granted, an already very strong archer class, maybe the strongest one around (sharpshooter) should not be pimped up even further. Certain drawbacks should be included as package deal to keep competitiveness and please - no kiting archers again. If I see how often other classes lose in direct 1v1 against archers due to a lot of different factors, I reaffirm that a speed buff to them to make them able to kite endlessly again is taking away skill, tactics and meaningful decision making rather than improving the experience.
I think either granting the pavise or no shield at all is fine, its actually a meaningful choice.
I believe there does seem to be a technical limitation to the way the servers interact - afterall this issue has been acknowledged for sometime and no reasonable person could suggest why it works as it does if it was optional.
I haven't tried this system yet - so don't want to judge. To my optimistic eyes it fulfils the same requirement; but without seeing it in action - who knows.
I swear i know you, did you used to go by OGL?
My problem is not the inconvenience, it's the extra step on itself that would most likely as Axios mentioned have to be do with their infrastructure, but then again we are lacking the communication from TW for the decision of why it was not possible in the first place.
DainMorgot
Sergeant
By that logic DainMorgot;
And warband is often on sale for a few quid; whereas Bannerlord remains expensive. Not even to mention players might be prohibited from playing bannerlord due to system requirements. As you said "the Numbers do not lie"....
....
Is Bannerlord singleplayer 3x better then warbands? ... or is there perhaps more going on....?
Maybe taking a picture of player counts doesn't really get to the detail of why bannerlords MP retention is so low. I would never suggest that bannerlords increased SP player count makes it directly superior to Warband as it stands.
I did not post total players count, I posted servers. I talk about MP. Yes bannerlord is dog**** compared to WB and thats why WB, a decade old game is more busy.
I know. I was using singleplayer as a comparison.
Is Warband SP dog**** because more people play bannerlord now? No. Obviously not. It is not such a simple black/white example.
This is the multiplayer forum. Making Singleplayer comparisons is not adequate. Goodbye.
What a ridiculous attempt at gatekeeping. Are all comparisons not allowed now? Should I avoid mentioning Mordhau as it isn't a M&B game?
The point I am making is taking a snap-shot of both MP communities and saying "This is larger so this game is better in all ways" is disingenuous.
If I said - Warband MP has better Graphics then Bannerlord MP because more people play it... would that be a valid statement? No. Maybe let's talk about actual things that are wrong instead of "Bannerlord bad cuz less people play".
You're free to make comparisons as you like, but comparing overall playernumbers is nonsensical when talking about Mount and Blade MULTIPLAYER, when we both know that the majority of either games players play Singleplayer.
Yes, player numbers alone are not conclusive as to how good a game is, congratulations. Comparing two very similar games though, of which one is far newer and a direct sequel to the other, one really does have to wonder why that ones numbers are lower... could it be that the game is lacking features and having other issues, meaning its... worse?
I'd see 8 years of development.
This is not a black and white example, a game released today should bring up a crushing amount of people as opposed to a game released 10 years ago, especially if it's the same game series and the same game studio.
Should i remind why a lot of people didn't play warband? Outdated. This is exactly why a majority of people didn't or have barely played warband. Bannerlord on itself should carry a massive amount of players unfinished or not. And SP shows the number for it, they failed on the MP.
