An open letter to the competitive community

Users who are viewing this thread

If you want to collect data from competitive scene, you can make your own tournament with a prize pool. You have a recourses for that. Tournament without restrictions will be an uninteresting experience for sure. And devs wants us to suffer for badges from paint? Make your own tournament with a decent prize pool and then we can have a conversation
That was the original plan and it will be the case if the players want to keep class limits.
This was just an opportunity to make an offering to speed things along for everyone. Completely up to you guys.
 
That was the original plan and it will be the case if the players want to keep class limits.
This was just an opportunity to make an offering to speed things along for everyone. Completely up to you guys.

To be honest, it would be far better to create a separate tournament hosted by TW to do this, don't want to risk tarnishing BEAST's name (especially considering it's the biggest and almost only BL skirmish tournament series).
 
You guys asked the combat parameters to be changed, and they literally got changed almost exactly as requested.
Factions were imbalanced, they are much better now.
There were many useless perks, we are changing them.
Some weapons and OP, they got adjusted.
The patch that was supposed to go out last night, makes spears hit earlier and deal more damage consistently, slows down maces, nerfs archer 2 handers, makes ALL infantry run faster and buffs pikes against cav. How are these changes not requested by the community?

And here we are hoping that competitive games to be played with standard rules so that we get to see what is broken and overpowered so we can FIX IT. We are are not saying the game is better with no-limits so you should play it that way.

I am literally asking you to play and show me what is wrong so we can fix it, how is that not listening to community?
Yes the game improved in alot of fields.

The only field where you failed throughout every patch was cav-inf balance in my opinion. Inf is too weak compared to Cav since day one of EA release, mainly because Knights are litterally untouchable if they stand infront of inf. With every patch inf got weaker and weaker until throwing was completely removed, while cav stayed strong. Even the latest 2 patches (1.5.5 and 1.5.6 buffed cav-inf). If you change stuff it just feels that you dont think about cav-inf balance at all.
 
Further more to my previous post, if patching can be done super fast now, why aren't you literally just throwing patches out and seeing what people think of it? For example, people have literally never stopped complaining about how their weapons do nothing to a heavy cav player who sits in the middle of an infantry groupfight and tanks all the hits like it's not even there. Surely it's a simple parameter change to make them(cav player) play a little smarter? Along a similar vein, making infantry faster so they can catch archers. Small changes like this is probably all that is needed and you might actually see a tournament without restrictions more willingly embraced.
 
Further more to my previous post, if patching can be done super fast now, why aren't you literally just throwing patches out and seeing what people think of it? For example, people have literally never stopped complaining about how their weapons do nothing to a heavy cav player who sits in the middle of an infantry groupfight and tanks all the hits like it's not even there. Surely it's a simple parameter change to make them(cav player) play a little smarter? Along a similar vein, making infantry faster so they can catch archers. Small changes like this is probably all that is needed and you might actually see a tournament without restrictions more willingly embraced.
Data telemetry + having in one place all the crème de la crème; it is plausible in my eyes.
 
The patch that was supposed to go out last night, makes spears hit earlier and deal more damage consistently, slows down maces, nerfs archer 2 handers, makes ALL infantry run faster and buffs pikes against cav. How are these changes not requested by the community?
Oh my lord, I can't wait. Spears finally getting some love? ?
Infantry being made faster??? o_O
Buff pikes against cav?!? ? <--- There's no way this wont be OP but I'll be loving every second of it.

So keen for Monday now. On the matter of the topic, it sounds good though I've got affiliation with the competitive scene. At the end of the day it is the Early Access tournament, so it would make sense that it's played by the early access rules, though I can still understand why someone would not be interested.
 
Regarding the most important aspect of this thread...The Badges

If TW is going to make badges for winners of competitive matches they should
  • Have 3 different badges for the three competitive modes (CAPTAIN, skirmish and dual)
  • Make the badges prestige each time you win another event like in the game CSGO where you can prestige your yearly badge slightly changing the color each time
  • Have somebody form the community make the badges (who doesn't love free labor)
Also, even though I'm not participating in BEAST I believe no class restrictions is for the best to make a better Bannerlord.
 
Well, tbh getting TW involved in our tournament is a big thing for all the community I guess.
I'd also hoped that people would be open to join the tourney because of it.

On top of that getting TW getting involved was a Sign for me that they activly want to balance around our competetiv needs.*

*the competetiv parts obviously
 
The patch that was supposed to go out last night, makes spears hit earlier and deal more damage consistently, slows down maces, nerfs archer 2 handers, makes ALL infantry run faster and buffs pikes against cav. How are these changes not requested by the community?
You guys are completely right on this and it will never happen again. We made adjustments to be able to send balance patches and critical fixes faster and straight to live.
Thank you. These two posts give me hope, that TW is able to reflect on what went wrong and make sensible changes. Being left with 17 weeks of absurd design choices (crushthrough) truly makes players dismayed. These sound like thoughtful adjustments that attempt to fix the class imbalances, plus if the patch comes out next week, TW is upholding what you're saying: 3 weeks ago crushthrough got removed, 3 days ago cav got plenty of changes and updated perks and supposedly next week a lot of (sensible) inf changes? I am happy to receive it.

Furthermore I'd like to reiterate and ask what Hairless mentioned.
if that patch will somehow change the miserable state of infantry I will most likely myself go forward and vote for limitless gameplay.
I am eager to know if other clans are also changing their opinion on the class restriction vote, based on the upcoming changes. Personally, I'm all in favor of a limitless tournament, for the better of the game. @Ikea Knight Perhaps this is a bit premature, but are you willing to shift the deadline of the vote to give players more time to check out the patch, depending on when it's pushed live?
 
TaleWorlds can look at data from matches played through the clan system matchmaker. I don't suggest making all teams in BEAST suffer unnecessarily, reason being data will show nothing new.
 
TaleWorlds can look at data from matches played through the clan system matchmaker. I don't suggest making all teams in BEAST suffer unnecessarily, reason being data will show nothing new.
They're playing as well so I guess they wanna see the true horror of 3-3 or 6 cav themselves. Cus they're playing, guess they can balance specific classes more accurately.
 
TaleWorlds can look at data from matches played through the clan system matchmaker. I don't suggest making all teams in BEAST suffer unnecessarily, reason being data will show nothing new.
You mean the matches played with limits that mean virtually nothing for what they want to achieve - a balance WITHOUT limits? Brilliant.
Claiming the data will show nothing new is nonsense and you know that.
 
You mean the matches played with limits that mean virtually nothing for what they want to achieve - a balance WITHOUT limits? Brilliant.
Claiming the data will show nothing new is nonsense and you know that.
Data is not valid if you play 3 archer and 3 cav per team because Infantry is entirely out of the picture. We should enforce strict rules on class limitations and it will benefit us in two ways. Firstly, we will play an enjoyable version of BEAST. Secondly, data is going to be accurate because we are not going to play 6 cavs per team after the tournament anyways. Collecting data this way is useless and it will also ruin the experience for everyone. Believe me this is a very bad decision and everyone will regret it. There is no need to ruin an entire tournament just to come to conclusions that we are already aware of.
 
If you want to collect data from competitive scene, you can make your own tournament with a prize pool.
That was the original plan and it will be the case if the players want to keep class limits.

/Thread?

Running BEAST on the most stable rules makes the most sense. The risk-reward seems weighted heavily on keeping the restrictions, because BEAST losing interest would be more detrimental than having balance sooner is beneficial. On that note, it's not a total loss in terms of data and player experience. At the very least, restricted-BEAST data will be superior to random matches.

An exhibition tournament will have much fewer players, but a prize pool (and dedication to the game) will help mitigate that.

Data is not valid if you play 3 archer and 3 cav per team because Infantry is entirely out of the picture.

Pick-rate is equally or more important than win-rate in many games.
 
Data is not valid if you play 3 archer and 3 cav per team because Infantry is entirely out of the picture. We should enforce strict rules on class limitations and it will benefit us in two ways. Firstly, we will play an enjoyable version of BEAST. Secondly, data is going to be accurate because we are not going to play 6 cavs per team after the tournament anyways. Collecting data this way is useless and it will also ruin the experience for everyone. Believe me this is a very bad decision and everyone will regret it. There is no need to ruin an entire tournament just to come to conclusions that we are already aware of.
Don't forget there is no decision. I didn't close the vote. TW's engagement should just be a motivator.
 
Data is not valid if you play 3 archer and 3 cav per team because Infantry is entirely out of the picture. We should enforce strict rules on class limitations and it will benefit us in two ways. Firstly, we will play an enjoyable version of BEAST. Secondly, data is going to be accurate because we are not going to play 6 cavs per team after the tournament anyways. Collecting data this way is useless and it will also ruin the experience for everyone. Believe me this is a very bad decision and everyone will regret it. There is no need to ruin an entire tournament just to come to conclusions that we are already aware of.
:facepalm:
IF. There is no definitive way of knowing that would happen (and work) without actually doing it. And if it does and your suspicions of it being OP come true, then the devs know without a doubt that they have to fix it.
The game needs to be balanced around unlimited play because that's the way it's intended to be played (otherwise we'd have class limits coded in, and would be pretty stupid) - you can't get data regarding unlimited play from limited play.

Believe me, playing a couple of weeks with POTENTIALLY bad balance is better than playing with what we have right (which most people are unhappy with one way or another) for years. There's also fairly little indication that we would actually spend the entire tournament with bad balance (if it turns out as bad as you claim) because, as AVRC has stated, they will be monitoring the data and acting on it with patches coming out much more frequently.
 
You guys asked the combat parameters to be changed, and they literally got changed almost exactly as requested.
Factions were imbalanced, they are much better now.
There were many useless perks, we are changing them.
Some weapons and OP, they got adjusted.
The patch that was supposed to go out last night, makes spears hit earlier and deal more damage consistently, slows down maces, nerfs archer 2 handers, makes ALL infantry run faster and buffs pikes against cav. How are these changes not requested by the community?

And here we are hoping that competitive games to be played with standard rules so that we get to see what is broken and overpowered so we can FIX IT. We are are not saying the game is better with no-limits so you should play it that way.

I am literally asking you to play and show me what is wrong so we can fix it, how is that not listening to community?

This is a pretty selective list of things - plenty of has been ignored and many things have been slow to change despite being obviously an issue (which you acknowledge).

That said I agree there should be no class restrictions. If the game is a broken mess because tanks can ride roughshod over everyone, let's show it and get it fixed. It's been nearly a year since EA.
 
Back
Top Bottom