My understanding of "3 essential elements" of Mount&Blade. Apparently, they are not typical Blizzard's "Healer-DPS-Tank"
They should be:
1. Balance maintainer(inf)
2. Balance manipulator(archer)
3. Balance pounder(cav)
"Balance" here is not about combat balance(not "who is OP, who should buff, etc...")
The "Balance" here means: 2 teams are in a relatively steady confrontational state. That state will last a certain time so that our skills, our tactics have an object to apply to.
Imagine we have a battle zone, 2 groups of melee infs are fighting each other. It could last about 2 minutes. That's because each of the team trying so hard. Neither will easily win.
Then players can design countless strategies for these priceless 2 minutes(or before these 2 minutes, or after)
We need this type of "Balance".
Let's talk back to Skirmish. We have poorly 6 ppl for each team.
What is the minimum number of archers to create x fire? 2
What is the minimum number of cavs to implement a chain attack? 2
Now we have only 2 slots left.
Question: Is there any possibility we create a "steady confrontational state" by these merely 2+2=4 infs?
No!
One successful charge/headshot could totally break the balance. 2v2 is "unstable".
Therefore, WE NEED A LARGER SCALE MELEE FIGHT.
You might argue: We don't need melee infs at all. We give them throwing weapons. Now everybody is kinda archer.
ok. For those non-melee inf units, their gameplay is basically "hit&run". Now everybody is dodging. How could this create a "steady confrontational state" battle zone?
Not to mention ppl are not expecting a medieval game to be another COD.
You might also argue: Who says we need a "steady confrontational state"? Lets forget "3 essential elements". We make infs dynamic. Also, we have archer x fire. That could be our "steady confrontational state" instead.
So its the current Skirmish design.
That is logically doable. So I will ask again: How many ppl get a medieval game to play COD/CS/BF/OW...?
BL veterans talk about rank, talk about newbies get bullied, Food chain, Social Darwinism, etc...
Do you guys ever think about how many options could a player have?
2 options? get strong or get bullied?
No. The third option is what they picked most frequently: To leave.
Anybody could get strong if they spend their time.
They just don't want to. Because that gameplay is something they don't want to spend their time on.
Last but not least. I asked some players about gameplay.
Archer-main player: enjoy when vs inf, boring/acceptable when vs archer,
cav-main player: enjoy when killing inf, acceptable vs cav
inf-main: its fun vs inf, boring vs cav/archer
so, besides the balancing design, since everybody could gain happiness from inf. The inf is kinda "happiness generator". Shouldn't we increase its number? Then make the game funnier?
conclusion:
from every aspect, we need a LARGER SCALE melee combat
6v6 is not enough to implement "3 essential elements"
============================================================
I know its an EA game. Just wish my thoughts and devs' thinking and planning have some coincide. If so, that will be great.
They should be:
1. Balance maintainer(inf)
2. Balance manipulator(archer)
3. Balance pounder(cav)
"Balance" here is not about combat balance(not "who is OP, who should buff, etc...")
The "Balance" here means: 2 teams are in a relatively steady confrontational state. That state will last a certain time so that our skills, our tactics have an object to apply to.
Imagine we have a battle zone, 2 groups of melee infs are fighting each other. It could last about 2 minutes. That's because each of the team trying so hard. Neither will easily win.
Then players can design countless strategies for these priceless 2 minutes(or before these 2 minutes, or after)
We need this type of "Balance".
Let's talk back to Skirmish. We have poorly 6 ppl for each team.
What is the minimum number of archers to create x fire? 2
What is the minimum number of cavs to implement a chain attack? 2
Now we have only 2 slots left.
Question: Is there any possibility we create a "steady confrontational state" by these merely 2+2=4 infs?
No!
One successful charge/headshot could totally break the balance. 2v2 is "unstable".
Therefore, WE NEED A LARGER SCALE MELEE FIGHT.
You might argue: We don't need melee infs at all. We give them throwing weapons. Now everybody is kinda archer.
ok. For those non-melee inf units, their gameplay is basically "hit&run". Now everybody is dodging. How could this create a "steady confrontational state" battle zone?
Not to mention ppl are not expecting a medieval game to be another COD.
You might also argue: Who says we need a "steady confrontational state"? Lets forget "3 essential elements". We make infs dynamic. Also, we have archer x fire. That could be our "steady confrontational state" instead.
So its the current Skirmish design.
That is logically doable. So I will ask again: How many ppl get a medieval game to play COD/CS/BF/OW...?
BL veterans talk about rank, talk about newbies get bullied, Food chain, Social Darwinism, etc...
Do you guys ever think about how many options could a player have?
2 options? get strong or get bullied?
No. The third option is what they picked most frequently: To leave.
Anybody could get strong if they spend their time.
They just don't want to. Because that gameplay is something they don't want to spend their time on.
Last but not least. I asked some players about gameplay.
Archer-main player: enjoy when vs inf, boring/acceptable when vs archer,
cav-main player: enjoy when killing inf, acceptable vs cav
inf-main: its fun vs inf, boring vs cav/archer
so, besides the balancing design, since everybody could gain happiness from inf. The inf is kinda "happiness generator". Shouldn't we increase its number? Then make the game funnier?
conclusion:
from every aspect, we need a LARGER SCALE melee combat
6v6 is not enough to implement "3 essential elements"
============================================================
I know its an EA game. Just wish my thoughts and devs' thinking and planning have some coincide. If so, that will be great.