Bring Back Deaths

[Hans 77]

The scoreboard doesn't currently show the number of deaths for each player.

While kills, assists, and damage dealt are all important stats, deaths are also a key metric for judging performance.

That is because number of deaths per round/match is directly linked to Survivability.

The metric of survivability is especially important in Battle/Skirmish Mode. Survivability was important in the long-standing 8v8 format of Warband, but it became even more crucial when the format shifted to 6v6 and 5v5. This is because the fewer players there are on a team, the more vital survivability becomes. In 8v8, losing a player early was bad, but not necessarily a death sentence because in a 7v8 there is still a lot of opportunity for chaos and some good teamwork. But in a 6v6 game, as soon as one player goes down, that short-handed team is almost instantly on the backfoot and desperately fighting in outnumbered mismatches.

Because Bannerlord's Skirmish Mode is 6v6, the metric of survivability is especially key. With only 12 players on the field, every action- even something as simple as mere presence, is crucial. If one player goes down, things can snowball very quickly -due the nature of 6v6. Thus, it would be wise for Taleworlds to bring back death counts, so us players can keep track of this important statistic.

Also, shunning death runs antipodal to the aesthetic and nature of the game we are playing.
Joy wouldn't feel so good if it wasn't for pain.
And what is death, but an excuse for life?

 

[FearSpear]

Hasn't this been discussed already?

Weeaboo detected opinion rejected

 

[Askey]

+1

 

[Sigaretovic]

+1

 

[duotangclan]

HELL YEAH BROTHER

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

my personal headcannon is they were all sitting around in a board meeting discussing multiplayer and someone said "Multiplayer is dying! we need to stop its death!" And the whoever was tasked to do it was daydreaming and only caught "multiplayer" "stop" "death" and as such removed deaths from multiplayer.

 

[Sigaretovic]

my personal headcannon is they were all sitting around in a board meeting discussing multiplayer and someone said "Multiplayer is dying! we need to stop its death!" And the whoever was tasked to do it was daydreaming and only caught "multiplayer" "stop" "death" and as such removed deaths from multiplayer.

All other explanations have been crossed off the board. This is the only realistic explanation left. Im glad we finally reconstructed how this could have happened.

@TW: wake up

 

[Blücher_]

Thus, it would be wise for Taleworlds to bring back death counts, so us players can keep track of this important statistic.

They don’t want you to keep track of your performance because the skill gap between new players and veterans is so high that they think people will not realize how badly they are getting wrecked if they remove death count. I guess they also suppose that the experienced players will keep track of it themselves. It’s dumb.

 

[Turnaround]

+1

 

[Hans 77]

They don’t want you to keep track of your performance because the skill gap between new players and veterans is so high that they think people will not realize how badly they are getting wrecked if they remove death count. I guess they also suppose that the experienced players will keep track of it themselves. It’s dumb.

That could actually be a very real reason as to why they pulled death count. If so, it's extremely unfortunate, because it illustrates the devs' lack of understanding as to why their franchise is so unique and special.

Much has already been said of Warband's staggering learning curve and skill ceiling, but there's no harm in bringing it up once more. The game itself was a literal craft/skill that required substantial effort and time to improve one's ability at. Sure, it was a sweaty/nerdy craft -because it's a video game after all, but it was still unique and cool. The huge chasm in skill levels between players actually added longevity to Warband's multiplayer, because the community was so diverse and varied in terms of where they were at on their Warband journey. The giant skill ceiling could be seen by new players as a challenge to tackle (if they possessed the right mindset) and also as a satisfying feeling accomplishment for players who made it to great heights, and thus they kept coming back to it (over 12 years running now!). To put it short, the steep learning curve and K2-esque skill ceiling actually made the game far better.

Now, imagine walking into a boxing gym -with no prior experience, and expecting to beat the trainer in a fight after only a week of boxing. The notion is utterly laughable. Beliefs like that exist when there is a naïve lack of understanding in just how much time and effort it takes to achieve a certain level of ability in a particular craft. Hiding death counts in Bannerlord doesn't help anyone -newbies or veterans. Bannerlord already has a lower skill ceiling than Warband, but it doesn't need to dumb itself down any further just to appeal to the lowest common denominator. If anything, it needs some improvement on its overall mechanics and gamemode design to raise that ceiling up some.

Appealing to the lowest common denominator is often the death of art. This applies to more than just video games; it can be seen in music, books, movies, and fashion. Now, if I'm selling toilet paper or soap, it might be beneficial for me to pitch my product to the lowest common denominator. But when something in the art fields goes this route, it's usually met with possible short-term gain at the cost of long-term longevity. If I'm a Turkish game developer selling a very niche medieval-based game, then I may want to lean more into the niche, instead of the common trends used among other popular titles -titles which most people won't even be playing a year or two from now. Just ask yourselves, how is Warband still around, when so many AAA multiplayer titles lived such short lives as just flashes in the pan?