Search results for query: *

+1 for this thread. Of all the issues with Bannerlord, this is one of the most easily fixed.

Wily slides in again...

Name: wK_WilySly
Steam: WilySly
Main Class: Inf/Cav
Region: NA

seolhyun's boyfriend kel said:

Click to expand...

:')

Fietta said:

The combat is so slow and clunky, unsure as to how you can say it 'feels better', if the combat from LO was In Bannerlord, I don't think anyone would touch the game... It does suit LO well though, but even though the combat is directional, that's pretty much where the similarities end.

Click to expand...

Hard disagree. Last Oasis' combat feels way closer to Warband's than Bannerlord's does, imo. Even ignoring all the other issues I have with Bannerlord (fixed loadouts, 1* cav controls, blah blah blah), its combat is absolutely terrible. Slow, clunky, unresponsive and without any redeeming features that I've noticed...It's closer to playing For Honor. LO's combat, especially by comparison, feels smooth, responsive and intuitive. We can say that Bannerlord is just moving into Early Access and still has time to polish (and I hope that it does), but the same applies for Last Oasis and I'd say LO is significantly more advanced at this point...despite TW putting a decade+ into Bannerlord.

And not that I personally care about Donkey Crew or who developed what game, but calling out Taleworlds as anything other than totally incompetent is disingenuous. I can't think of a gaming company that has done less to support, inform and excite its player base.

I'm still hoping that Bannerlord turns around, but as both games enter Early Access? It's not even close imo.

Lol, what is going on with P and Lag on the South American WBMM

OurGloriousLeader said:

by tweaking the movement, blocking, and combat animations in the right I think they'd be 90% of the way there

Click to expand...

I mean, yeah?  Fix the most crucial aspects of the game and I guess you'd be just about there 

Grimsight said:

They're going to do singleplayer justice for sure.. they always get that right. Multiplayer & combat though.. There are fundamental design decisions that are not in line with Warband and in my view will completely demolish games depth compared to Warband. I'm with Shema, the first night I got in beta was depressing as ****. Waited 7 years just to find out that TaleWorlds doesn't know what they're doing. They're improving things slowly but most of the problems are design choices that they're not going to revert. The competitive community can mod everything until it suits our needs, but if TaleWorlds doesn't nail it off the bat then casual audience is gone.

Click to expand...

This is about where I'm at too.

Fietta said:

more so preference than it being a bad game. It's the same jar, just a different cookie.

Click to expand...

This is the point I was trying to get across with my Halo reference.  I'm not saying that Bannerlord (like Halo 4) can't be made into a polished game.  I'm saying that it's being made into a game I'm not going to enjoy and probably won't buy.

I don't think the game is unsalvageable -- I just think they're taking it in a different direction than I'm interested in.  Although the fixed loadouts and entire "pay gold for spawn" system pains me, I could get over it.  It's the combat mechanics and general clunkiness of gameplay that's scaring me off.  The animations, the movement controls (for cav especially), the timings of blocking/swinging, etc all feel very off.  Doesn't feel like Mount and Blade to me.

And, maybe it's not intended to?  IMO, Warband with some polish, extra features and better graphics would have been the perfect next iteration and I think many others (especially the older players) were expecting something along those lines.  Instead, we have a dramatically different game, with the only real carryover being that you can still block and swing in 4 directions.  Sadly, there are multiple games available which have emulated that combat system (some of which do it better than Bannerlord), so I don't think it's enough to carry the franchise, especially if Bannerlord's execution doesn't compare with Warband's or any of the other available titles.

I hope and expect that Bannerlord will get better, especially with a bunch of experienced players like OGL/Eb/Vorn giving them feedback.  But, this is the beta.  That means TW spent a long time playing this and testing it out and going "Yep, feels good."  So while I would expect to see a bit of polish and some tweaking on animations, damage, etc., I wouldn't assume they're going to make some of the broad changes that I think they need to make to create an enjoyable multiplayer experience.  I'm just sort of looking at it like the transition from Halo 2/3 to Halo 4 and wondering if I want to play that game.

OurGloriousLeader said:

Possibly actually providing feedback and testing the game more than 5 mins

Click to expand...

Rake said:

yeah but for a long while they were not listening to player feedback, so obviously people got frustrated and stop giving input

Click to expand...

After reading pages and pages of people with identical feedback and seeing pretty lackluster responses from the development team, I was under the impression that they weren't all that interested in hearing from their playerbase, despite their protestations otherwise.  If you're saying that you think they're open to feedback, I love Warband enough that I'm willing to give it another look, but I'm not trying to waste my time.  Ain't none of us gettin paid for this, so when a developer says "Well actually the delay is intentional," I figure any further investment on my part is a recipe for a broken heart.

Gorlock said:

The combat is great most times

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly disagree, but I don't hate you for liking it.

Gorlock said:

it feels like playing warband on high ping (Feel like walking in mud, things are shifting around, animations get bugged the **** out

Click to expand...

This has 100% been my experience, though Vorn's trying to win me over.  I've been playing it more over the last few days so that I can give it a more meaningful test, but it doesn't change my impression that Taleworlds have done a pretty poor job so far.  And, after years of relatively unprofessional behavior, I'm disinclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I am supremely disappointed in the state of Bannerlord.  Hadn't played since August, but heard that TW has made lots of updates/improvements/fixes, so I logged on.  I don't know how you miss the mark so badly after so many years in development, but that game is absolutely terrible.  I'd rather play War of the Roses from 10 years ago.

Fehnor said:

BIT, CJTT, NASTe seasons 1 and 2, KBooB, and KTiT were pre-UNAC. Well-documented, organized, competitive, and had major players.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,154586.0.html
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,169650.0.html
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,194970.0.html
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,238001.0.html
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,256866.0.html

Click to expand...

Ayyy, Fehnor still doing God's work.  He led the streaming effort before there was a streaming effort.

P.S.

Getting yelled at by Oodle for doing something wrong?

Click to expand...

Oodle was an absolute gentleman when he was in wK.  Maybe you guys just need to stop ****ing up 

P.P.S.

Watching wK get knocked out of the playoffs by KoA who then proceeded to get demolished?

Click to expand...

I got physically hurt being reminded of this

Blead said:

Na would probably be KoA.

Click to expand...

What in sam hill

I feel personally attacked by this thread

These clips were great to watch    Especially being from NA, where my only interaction with some of these players was when one of us had pathetic ping.  Top tier talents -- thanks for linking the Youtube links too.  Got me pumped to go play some Warband

IT IS TIME

Watly said:

Teams camp because neither team wants to push the opponent into their fortified positions; adding an extra 30 seconds does not change that. Good teams make the tactical plays in the 30 seconds after the flag spawns, as it gives an objective with multiple ways to approach it.

I would very much like to see where you get the knowledge from that good teams used the time before flag well. When AE dominated, they did most of the tactical plays after the flag spawned and I recall many of them advocating for reducing round timers.

Click to expand...

I advocated for it too.  Seemed like a good idea, like it would accelerate the pace of matches and reduce camping.  To some degree, it did, but it also reduced the time for strategic plays that don't have anything to do with MOTF.  So maybe it would work better if there was a larger gap between forced MOTF spawn and the round start, even with a shortened round timer.

Short of looking up a bunch of clips of wK damaging teams prior to MOTF spawns, I'm not sure how you'd like us to illustrate our experience.  Up until UNAC S4, teams just fought, by trying to create opportunities via movement or aggression.  MOTF was present only if teams were camping or couldn't finish each other off.  After UNAC S4, the timer reduced and MOTF took a way bigger precedence in determining how fights would happen and where.

I recognize that many teams benefited from shortened round timers (because they didn't have to worry about doing anything other than zerging at flag now, IMO).  In my experience leading wK, we had a lot of success using that pre-MOTF time to generate wins.

Anyways, just my thoughts, but I'm not trying to turn this into another "X vs Y" thread.

Personally, I prefer the longer round timer.  Originally, I was excited to try shorter round lengths, since I hoped it would curtail some of the pre-MOTF camping.  Unfortunately, IMO, it really just turned most Warband matches into a dead sprint for the predicted MOTF spawn, and removed intelligent/aggressive players' opportunities to make some exciting pre-MOTF plays.

I don't care much about combat speed or gold -- everyone's able to adapt, though I prefer 1500 gold and fastest.  I think that as our NA tournaments evolved, they got better in a lot of ways.  The shorter round timer is one of the few aspects where I think we took a step in the decidedly wrong direction.

And to those saying that longer round timers just means more camping at the beginning, I'd agree with that criticism.  Most clans didn't make use of that time and just spent that extra 30 seconds staring at a wall.  And it's a big reason why those clans didn't win.

Bannerlord finally coming...who would have believed