BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

BEAST is the first Bannerlord Skirmish tournament in Europe.

Quick Overview

Category
Bannerlord
Language
English (US)
Total members
132
Total events
0
Total discussions
56

[Beast #2] Suggestions

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Aeronwen

Marquis
Best answers
0
So when I requested something on behalf of my clan, the majority would be discriminated and it would be a bad thing. But now when the "certain players" are discriminated it's the bad thing. Would be nice if you could decide if you want to support majority or help "certain" individuals instead of fighting on two fronts. Going by the first logic class limits are good, cuz majority wants them, but going by the second one they are bad cuz not everyone is satisfied. Democracy rules.
no idea what you are talking about tbh
I don't like class limits. I think teams should be free to play however many of whatever class they wish. That is my personal preference.
Whatever you are comparing to that is probably apples and oranges. And if it was an admin decision in the last tourney it would be an all admin decision not a personal preference.
 

Aprikosenmann

Squire
Best answers
0
It's not us that have to prove anything, you are the one trying to convince majority that something that's accepted and deemed proper by everyone is a bad thing.
I am INF player, I really love the class restriction. I hate getting shot and lanced.
However since Archers and Cav are considered not OP anymore (listen to Krex, Firunien, Rangah) Im wondering why there is a limit at all.
And I feel sorry for clans without inf players. I think the proof, that cav and archer spam would be broken on the current patch is not made yet.
 

IceNoVa

The Kaiser
Global Moderator
WBM&BVCNWWF&S
Best answers
0
The skirmish experience thrives with a diverse pick of classes, most are viable in some tactic or the other.
The main event of Mount&Blade is the melee combat on foot, but by nature that is the most negatively affected part of the game when long range and horseback (or both) can go with no limitations.
I can see how some teams or players might not wish for restrictions that might affect their individual performance if they are mainly invested in class that may be subject to restriction.
However, the overall experience of all players, spectators and teams would imo be improved if there would be some restriction to some classes.
 

Tryerror

Veteran
Best answers
0
Personally I dont think we need a cav limit but still an Archer limit. Both Classea got nerfed but so got Inf especially against Archers with throwing delay. XBow almost didn't got nerfed. Archers didnt got nerfed enough to justify to unban them. Cav imo is another matter.
 

Comte Dark

Veteran
Best answers
0
I think it would be more interesting to take over the system of promoting and relegating of football.
it would better reward the season

Promotions :


Relegation :
 

Ikea Knight

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I think it would be more interesting to take over the system of promoting and relegating of football.
it would better reward the season

Promotions :


Relegation :
We have thought about that.
The issue is that only because you beat group B doesn't mean you're automatically good enough to be in group A.
I think we can hardly compare our three division tournament to the multitude of football leauges each country has.
The more division there, are the smaller is the skill gap between each division.

I mean if a team can't beat the worst team of a division, does that team really earn to be in that group?
 

Comte Dark

Veteran
Best answers
0
I think you have to give them a chance, the teams have had a very good season to get there, it's a reward and that's what can happen, many teams have already created the surprise in the sport. Without forgetting the transfer of players during the inter season.
 

Comte Dark

Veteran
Best answers
0
Otherwise it's not interesting, you can just rely on the fact that the lower division teams are not as strong, and no challenge then.
 

Ikea Knight

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
For now we want to keep things as they are.
The first season is going to be only five weeks plus 1 week for finals and progression matches. If our ideas turn out to be inadequat teams won't have to wait too long for new tournament rules.
 

Bertalicious

Veteran
Best answers
0
Suggestions:

1. "(3) Either team may restart the match during the warm-up phase up to 3 times each, but players leaving a match once play has started may face consequences."

This is completely unclear, you should state exactly what the consequences are.

2. There is no default match time in rules.

Conflict is bound to happen at some point, so no default match time will only result in admins being busier and having to resolve every conflict manually.
 

Aeronwen

Marquis
Best answers
0
Suggestions:

1. "(3) Either team may restart the match during the warm-up phase up to 3 times each, but players leaving a match once play has started may face consequences."

This is completely unclear, you should state exactly what the consequences are.

2. There is no default match time in rules.

Conflict is bound to happen at some point, so no default match time will only result in admins being busier and having to resolve every conflict manually.
I take your pount. In the past we have tried things both ways and both have their issues:

1. Admins will have to make a determination based on any evidence supplied. Unfortuantely trying to pin down consequences leads to more conflict, especially with clans/players who are more interested in the letter of the rules than in fair play.

2. We found a default match time encouraged some teams to cause problems by not attempting to compromise on time because they preferred the default time. The current rules aim to make this less advantageous to teams who prefer to gain advantage by means other than skill in the game.
 

Bertalicious

Veteran
Best answers
0
"1. Admins will have to make a determination based on any evidence supplied. Unfortuantely trying to pin down consequences leads to more conflict, especially with clans/players who are more interested in the letter of the rules than in fair play."

??????????????

Just state what the consequences are. Warning or suspension, whatever. I think it's unclear to have such a rule in the first place, because of peopling crashing. Every single "player left the game" situation will just be called a crash, even if it was a ragequit or intentional leave to try and get better players into the game. I don't see why a team wouldn't drop a player on purpose and have some top-tier player queue up in hopes of joining them in the match.

The rule should state that in case of players crashing, no other player signed up in the tournament is allowed to play in that match, and if they do, just let the team with no crashes claim the default win for the map. I would be infuriated if someone dropped a player because they lost a round, someone really good joined them, and we lost the map because of that. Hell, you could even drop half of your team and get DM-s who just randomly queued up...

So either change the rule or state the consequences clearly.

" 2. We found a default match time encouraged some teams to cause problems by not attempting to compromise on time because they preferred the default time. The current rules aim to make this less advantageous to teams who prefer to gain an advantage by means other than skill in the game. "

You will find that having no default match time causes even more problems. There is a reason we had a default match time in every Warband tournament for as long as I can remember. If anything, current rules will cause the exact opposite because you will get groups of people who play everyday matched up against people who only play weekends. What then? One team will propose Monday to Friday, the other team will propose weekend... going with your logic, the team who proposed 5 days gave more options, and the final date should be chosen among them (even if they could technically play on that weekend, but just didn't mention that).
 

Aeronwen

Marquis
Best answers
0
There is a reason we had a default match time in every Warband tournament for as long as I can remember.
No we didn't.
We have a time by which the match must be scheduled in every tournament but we do not usually have a default match time. Are you confusing those two? As I said, we tried it a couple of times and it caused more problems than requiring teams to post.

The admins have already discussed these points before the rules were posted but we can have another look at it.
 

Aprikosenmann

Squire
Best answers
0
There could be a rule that goes like:

"If a player crashes before any damage was dealt in the first round the match has to be remade"

Im not sure if the max 3 times limitation is needed. I mean there is no reason for a team to remake the same match over and over again other than delaying/trolling.

We found a default match time encouraged some teams to cause problems by not attempting to compromise on time
+1
 

Aeronwen

Marquis
Best answers
0
There could be a rule that goes like:

"If a player crashes before any damage was dealt in the first round the match has to be remade"

Im not sure if the max 3 times limitation is needed. I mean there is no reason for a team to remake the same match over and over again other than delaying/trolling.
The first one is impossible to administer without refs, and by the nature of the Skirmish mode we cannot have refs.

the second one is EXACTLY why the rule is there.
 

Greedalicious

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
Shame to see class limits are still a thing. Artificial balancing and strangleholds tactics and innovation.
Its early access, we should be breaking everything and provide feedback for balance down the line, at this rate, competitive is gonna look dissapointing.
 

Ikea Knight

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Shame to see class limits are still a thing. Artificial balancing and strangleholds tactics and innovation.
Its early access, we should be breaking everything and provide feedback for balance down the line, at this rate, competitive is gonna look dissapointing.
I agree with you. But for this tourney we let the participants decide again.
 

DeathBG

Recruit
Best answers
0
My suggestion is to ban the menavlion infantry from the tournament until the crush through is fixed.Yesterday I played vs a team of 4 menavlions every up attack they do is crush through when 2 or 3 of them attack you you are dead no matter how good you are.It's broken and it's gonna be abused so I suggest that the Admins ban it until a patch sorts it out.