BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

[Aeronwen]

Some players have argued for there to be more restrictions than simply cav or archer, some have argued that mounted archers should be a class on their own and some feel that cav/archer restrictions are no longer needed as they are more balanced now.

As we are midway through this tournament anyone is there more consensus now on what, if any, class are OP and if so why?

 

[The_Great_White]

I'm curious about other people's opinions, here's mine:

First of all, i'm against removing class limits, cav and archer in higher numbers are still too overpowered

Another OP class is horse archer - a horse, 50 arrows and other factors i right now can't put in words is the most OP class in the game and there was a reason, why these were banned in warband.

Think the only reason you don't see people play 2 horsearcher is because cav is still more than needed in the gameplay

That's my two cents

 

[Namakan]

to make it short, I'd argue that:
-a horsearcher should count as both one cavalry AND one archer, because it effectively is.
-cavalry and archer limits should be upped to 3, as especially cav is far less powerfull right now than ever.*
-no limits are not a sensible option as high numbers of either class are very frustrating to play against, even though a somewhat coordinated team should be able to beat either.
-a limit to twohanded infantry classes should be introduced as long as they are as strong as right now.**

*I doubt that you'd see many clans playing 3 cavalry to be honest, 3 archers might be an option but that too seems unlikely. Having the option to would be nice though.

**I'm aware that vlandia has a disadvantage here because it takes away their light infantry class and sergeant can only spawn once in first round due to being 160 gold. I don't think trying to engineer a rule around it (e.g. "only two players per team may use a twohanded weapon at the same time") would be a good alternative as it would just cause more confusion

 

[Hairless]

2 hands are to op, but as krex pointed limit to 2 hands will be hard to introduce bcs of the voulgier.
HA seems very strong, tho the way he is counted as CAV right now feels good to me, no need to change that.
Nothing to add really other than 1.5 being a downgrade to the game.

 

[TheBard]

I'll give my two cents as team captain, so please keep in mind that this is strictly strictly seperate from administration duty.

The class limit is in place for quite some time now (since BEAST#1) and it has been kept this way even though
1.5 changed a lot. One could argue that cavalry has been nerfed accordingly and I agree with that.


1. Archers however are as strong if not stronger than before because of Inf + Cav changes. If you see how hard an archer gets pressured in high skill matches, you can imagine the impact of one ranger, if properly placed. Make it two and the inf might be become more vulnerable, make it three or more and we have crossfire pew-pew from all sides. Is it possible to beat that? Yes, certainly there will be a way. Will it be fun to play against that? No. Not at all. I for once don't really want to play against constant crossfire CS-like situations which could arise imo due to map design and the sheer fact that we're talking 6v6 and not 8v8 and the factor of multiple spawns. A cheap archer for 110/120 might be more worth than any light infantry can be, considering the fact that usually loot for these archers can be obtained, making some of them into light inf with bow. I opt for keeping the current limit.
One thing about archer spam tactics: Countering them is no fun, it's also harder to counter than to employ.
2. Restricting shock inf was mentioned before, some factions (Vlandia) are dependent on them to have light inf choice which makes a decision here more difficult. I'd opt for no restriction on them.
3. Horse Archers have been mentioned and while they are a pest to deal with they lack the power of a proper lancer because the horses are usually squishy and the archer on top as well. If we talk about Lancer-Conversion with hunting bow, you're out of your mind, in my opinion this is literally the worse choice if you spend 200 Gold, get a proper class and not this sorry excuse. With bumping change the power of this combination has been nerfed as well. I would say we keep them as cavalry, that way Khuzait can field more archers than two and that makes them unique imo. As long as they aren't banned though, I'd opt for the cav limit.
4. Let's talk Cav in general for the last: As long as horse archers are counted as cavalry, a restriction for cavalry has to remain. Or a seperate limit for Khuzait? This will produce more problems. Cav in itself is not OP, but lifting the restriction now would imo be wrong because of the confusion it creates.

Conclusion:
And here it's becoming difficult. Because how to administer this? This will be a hell for the administration staff. And it might completely change meta. I'd say the current limits should be kept because we've been playing two thirds of the tournament by it and changing mid tournament can be considered unfair on many levels. One more thing I want to add: we can talk about this in detail after the tournament has been concluded.

Edit: I forgot to include one thing. Bannerlord is in a weak position right now because of the state of the game. With the class limit some sort of consistency is guaranteed and matches can be very interesting because of two team fights per round. If such boring tactics might become meta (4 archers, have fun with the crossfire) it could actually make more people leave because it's simply less fun to play than the current way competitive Bannerlord is being played.

 

[Ikea Knight]

Conclusion:
And here it's becoming difficult. Because how to administer this? This will be a hell for the administration staff. And it might completely change meta. I'd say the current limits should be kept because we've been playing two thirds of the tournament by it and changing mid tournament can be considered unfair on many levels. One more thing I want to add: we can talk about this in detail after the tournament has been concluded

Well of course we are not changing in the middle of the tournament.
Aeronwen is probably asking for future tournaments.

So my opinion as a player is:
Cavalry is okay. They are still important for map control and potent enough for fights.
Otherwise teams had stopped using them by now.

Archers on the other hand are too strong.
They have always be useful against cavalry and do okay against infantry.
I think one issue is kiting. Heavy infantry can't really chase them. And even for lighter infantry it can take way to long.
Additionaly they are a hard counter to the most impactful unit right now, the shock infantry.

Talking about shock infantry: yeah two handers have become really strong. But it is also high risk, high reward. You are very weak to ranged weapons (and spears but nobody usually tries that) and even one vs one voulgiers are harder to play then a unit with shield.
And looking at all shock inf-units, Battania and Sturgia and even Aserai feel significantly weaker than Empire and Vlandia.

I think teams can still improve on their tactics against shock infantry. I don't consider them that op. They are really strong in teamfights but you have to get into those first.

For me the only reason to keep class limits are the archers.
Their only unfavourable match up are units with big shields but most of those are too slow to really come close to them.

I personally think the game needs more units like the Battanian Skirmisher. Somewhere in the middle with their speed and armor but no acces to a heavy two hander.
Those units could be the counter to archers without having an overpowered utility with two handed perks.

 

[WakaWaka]

ban mongolion class is way to op imagine 1hiting every cav+ crush trought + movement speed way to fast. a 2 handed class should be slow asf and not for 120 gold comon

 

[Aeronwen]

I'm curious about other people's opinions, here's mine:

First of all, i'm against removing class limits, cav and archer in higher numbers are still too overpowered

Another OP class is horse archer - a horse, 50 arrows and other factors i right now can't put in words is the most OP class in the game and there was a reason, why these were banned in warband.

Think the only reason you don't see people play 2 horsearcher is because cav is still more than needed in the gameplay

That's my two cents

ye I think that is generally the consensus. Do you play many skirmishes with more archers though? Do you think the op-ness of archers is faction specific?

....

I understand the point but I would be against making more complicated rules around class restrictions. Do you think there could be balance changes that would remove the need for them?

....
Nothing to add really other than 1.5 being a downgrade to the game.

Why was 1.5 a downgrade?

....

Very comprehensive
ye - no-one would change mid tourney but I think the conversation is worth having.
ofc in Warband we simply outlawed Khergit, do think that would be ott here?

....

why do you say archers are too strong? generally if they are pushed into melee they are at a disadvantage and right now arrows do very little damage.

ban mongolion class is way to op imagine 1hiting every cav+ crush trought + movement speed way to fast. a 2 handed class should be slow asf and not for 120 gold comon

that's a good point

 

[Pacemaker]

Archers on the other hand are too strong.
They have always be useful against cavalry and do okay against infantry.
I think one issue is kiting. Heavy infantry can't really chase them. And even for lighter infantry it can take way to long.
Additionaly they are a hard counter to the most impactful unit right now, the shock infantry.

I really don't know what you are seeing in archers that I'm not. I haven't played any CW in 1.5 where a team successfully pulled off the archer kiting thing. Yes they can still outrun most infantry, but what does that give them when that means they aren't supporting literally anyone in the infantry fight? Archers are borderline useless in 1.5.

 

[The_Great_White]

ye I think that is generally the consensus. Do you play many skirmishes with more archers though? Do you think the op-ness of archers is faction specific?

Speaking for my team, we don't play more than one archer but that's more because of the player's preffered class, lot of my teammates are still fairly new to the game and more leaning towards playing infantry.

I think the op-ness of archers is more a general thing than faction specific. They simply can run away from almost every infantry unit which makes it hard to push them and actually catch them. But i'm not sure myself so i'll prefer a player actually playing archer sharing his opinion

 

[Aprikosenmann]

I think the whole Class Limit discussion is 95% bias and 5%reason.
Everyone is pulling weird arguments why something is OP.
As Infantry it is always frustrating to play against Cav and Archers nomatter if OP or not. Now that more than 50% of Players are Inf we will always have the majority for the class limit.
I HATE that we have to limit the classes. But as Inf player I LOVE having that limit.

But I also see a world where we can play without it. It hasnt been proven yet that 2cav4archer destroys the game it might be even bad right?

 

[The_Great_White]

But I also see a world where we can play without it. It hasnt been proven yet that 2cav4archer destroys the game it might be even bad right?

This world is called "Warband"

 

[Aeronwen]

I think the whole Class Limit discussion is 95% bias and 5%reason.

That was what I was wondering. The arguments pushed out by inf players do not correspond with my experience in game.

 

[Namakan]

I understand the point but I would be against making more complicated rules around class restrictions. Do you think there could be balance changes that would remove the need for them?

of course there could be balance changes that would remove the need for restrictions on twohanders but so far I'm having trouble seeing TaleWorlds do anything.
The current, broken, "balance" has been in the game for roughly eight weeks now, nothing has happened.


Having no limits at all would work for cavalry because it's in a terrible state right now, archers I don't quite know.

 

[Ikea Knight]

Tbh it's not that hard to test.
Clans can just play matches where one side stick to the limits and the other side doesn't.

For me personally my opinion comes from a match two weeks ago.
I was stacking together with the guys from DR2 in public matchmaking and we matched against a stack from BT.
I think we were Aserai vs Battania. But I am sure it was on trading outpost.
We sticked to the class limitations the whole match and BT didn't. We tried a couple of things like 2/2/2, 1 cav 5inf, 4inf/2 archers while BT Bt had atleast 3 or more archers in every round.

It was a close match that BT won 3/2.
I remember it fairly well because we noticed rather quickly that we won most of the melee situations but it was more of an issue to get there.
We got kited a lot and while one archer wss running away we still got shot by at least two other archers.
Sadly I have no record of that match and it obviously is only a personal experience.

But for me that's why I think archers need a class limit.
Oh and in no way this is supposed to shine a bad light on BT. It was a random match without official rules and they were simply better.

 

[Aprikosenmann]

Tbh it's not that hard to test.

Yep but no one is willing to do...
We could gather the 4 best archers and 2 good cav and let them play against DM/RM and look how it goes.

NoVa brought one of the best arguments for the class limit I think. He said the class limit provides consistency in matches and makes sure that melee combat, the main point of Mount and Blade, stays present. It's just sad to see how everyone has to act like archers are super OP to justify the class limit.

 

[Aeronwen]

of course there could be balance changes that would remove the need for restrictions on twohanders but so far I'm having trouble seeing TaleWorlds do anything.
The current, broken, "balance" has been in the game for roughly eight weeks now, nothing has happened.


Having no limits at all would work for cavalry because it's in a terrible state right now, archers I don't quite know.

Do you have specific suggestions about specific 2h weapons or is it the case that all 2h are op?

Tbh it's not that hard to test.
Clans can just play matches where one side stick to the limits and the other side doesn't.

For me personally my opinion comes from a match two weeks ago.
I was stacking together with the guys from DR2 in public matchmaking and we matched against a stack from BT.
I think we were Aserai vs Battania. But I am sure it was on trading outpost.
We sticked to the class limitations the whole match and BT didn't. We tried a couple of things like 2/2/2, 1 cav 5inf, 4inf/2 archers while BT Bt had atleast 3 or more archers in every round.

It was a close match that BT won 3/2.
I remember it fairly well because we noticed rather quickly that we won most of the melee situations but it was more of an issue to get there.
We got kited a lot and while one archer wss running away we still got shot by at least two other archers.
Sadly I have no record of that match and it obviously is only a personal experience.

But for me that's why I think archers need a class limit.
Oh and in no way this is supposed to shine a bad light on BT. It was a random match without official rules and they were simply better.

So what you seem to be saying is that you didn't want to fight archers 1v1 but to all go after one archer? If each archer was running away from pursuing inf there would have been no shooting.

Yep but no one is willing to do...
We could gather the 4 best archers and 2 good cav and let them play against DM/RM and look how it goes.

NoVa brought one of the best arguments for the class limit I think. He said the class limit provides consistency in matches and makes sure that melee combat, the main point of Mount and Blade, stays present. It's just sad to see how everyone has to act like archers are super OP to justify the class limit.

if consistency in matches is the aim we would only ever use one map and one faction. Also if we were all playing 6 archers all the time, that would be consistent. when cav are dismounted and when archers are in melee range we all go melee anyway so why should inf be artificially favoured?

 

[Ikea Knight]

So what you seem to be saying is that you didn't want to fight archers 1v1 but to all go after one archer? If each archer was running away from pursuing inf there would have been no shooting.

No that wasn't the case. I mean there are so many things happening in a match, it is hard to simplify it to one or two situations.

But once you started a teamfight your options are really limited.
You can either fight the enemy infantry while they try to turn you and they get assisted by their archers or you try to go for the archers but that reduces the strengt in the teamfight.

 

[Aeronwen]

No that wasn't the case. I mean there are so many things happening in a match, it is hard to simplify it to one or two situations.

But once you started a teamfight your options are really limited.
You can either fight the enemy infantry while they try to turn you and they get assisted by their archers or you try to go for the archers but that reduces the strengt in the teamfight.

well if you have the same amount of inf in the teamfight what are your other players doing? If you need more inf than them in the teamfight aren't we talking about a difference in skill?

 

[Namakan]

Do you have specific suggestions about specific 2h weapons or is it the case that all 2h are op?

Let's put it like this: the only ones that haven't stuck out to me as really powerful are the battanian ones - I rarely see those being played. Now I don't know the reason why they aren't played as often - it might be that they just aren't any good or maybe the alternatives (light infantry with shields and javs that (iirc) can still spawn three times) are just even better. Maybe some of the inf mains here can weigh in on that.