[parsehtml]<p><img class="frame" src="https://www.taleworlds.com/Images/News/blog_post_31_taleworldswebsite.jpg" alt="" width="575" height="290" /></p>
<p>For many people, Mount & Blade: Warband is a singleplayer experience which lets them rise from the rank of a commoner up to the ruler of an entire kingdom, developing their character and fighting in epic sieges along the way.
For others, it is an opportunity to run around naked with a two-handed sword and test their combat skills against players from all around the world. In this week’s blog, we talk with the person responsible for making these equally epic (and sometimes silly) experiences a reality in Bannerlord: Korneel Guns.</p></br> [/parsehtml]Read more at: http://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Bannerlord/Blog/51
Dev Blog 15/03/18
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
monoolho 说:
A ranking system is a form of extrinsic motivation for the user, as opposed to intrinsic motivation which is not predicated on any 'nudging' from the developers.
to me, if you're not motivated to develop your own skills as a player, then you lack fundamental drive to keep playing.
I would even say a motivation based on self-mastery takes the frustration out of a video game, which is HUGE.
I mean, if you're focused on mastery, rather than achieving a rank, personal error becomes a learning experience rather than a detrimental experience to your value as a player.
Also, its been noted people who focus on self-mastery (versus rivalry incentives) achieve a higher level of success.
So really it enforces a less salty playerbase overall.
Duh
Duke
I don't believe that it is helpful to reject the skirmish mode in the way some folks have done due to their outrage with the removal of the battle mode. Overly dramatic claims discredit the very feedback that you hope TW will listen to. You do not have to blindly hate on Skirmish to argue for an implementation of Battle.
For instance, it is not a credible claim that TW does not care about the competitive scene and/or e-sports. If we look at the modes discussed by Callum, it is noteworthy that despite an increased engine capability, most modes seem to focus on drastically smaller player counts than the likely possible 200+. While the intention behind that choice is obviously up to speculation, it does provide an environment that enables commentators to easily discuss players and teams and it also helps (casual) audiences to identify with them and understand what is happening in a battle. Especially the bots and the way that players use them provide a new avenue of discussion and help visualize the "tides" of battle. Similarly, the preset equipments as well as the new economic system (whether you like them or not) are also in conflict with the notion "they don't care about competition/esports/etc". Both are deliberate choices to address matters of balance, which are key to any competition. I really can't fathom why some people would argue FOR snowballing in this context. Or the seemingly thoughtless rejection of presets. Surely, you realize that even a greater choice in predetermined equipment ultimately boils down to a number of presets. Surely, you also realize that a greater number of meaningful equipment choices will always unbalance the measurement of individual (1on1) skill as different roles excell against different archetypes. Reducing these choices may, admittedly, inhibit your own personal playstyle but cannot be said to be a sign of desinterest in competition. Quite the contrary, it takes away from the "free" mode to enhance competitive balance ...or at the very least their ability to balance. Lastly, some folks state that skirmish is not competitive whatsoever. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction. While Skirmish may be less competitive in terms of individual fighting prowess, it enhances the role of tactical play. Players not only have to coordinate with each other, they also have to take into account how to best utilize their troops (and lives, etc.). This adds greater weight to their tactical choices, because the AI cannot rely on its twitch-skills to get out of sticky situations. Skirmish may therefore even be the harder game mode - You not only have to fight, but you also need to command. This is a shift in competitive nature and not its removal.
Having said all that, I do believe that there is still a place for Battle. As it represents meeting in the middle of skirmish (tactical focus) and duel (individual focus). And just to be sure - I am not saying that Battle is not tactical, just less so on an individual player basis than Skirmish. It may be best to focus on this aspect and how Battle would add to the MP and competitive experience alongside Skirmish and Duels rather than proclaiming
For instance, it is not a credible claim that TW does not care about the competitive scene and/or e-sports. If we look at the modes discussed by Callum, it is noteworthy that despite an increased engine capability, most modes seem to focus on drastically smaller player counts than the likely possible 200+. While the intention behind that choice is obviously up to speculation, it does provide an environment that enables commentators to easily discuss players and teams and it also helps (casual) audiences to identify with them and understand what is happening in a battle. Especially the bots and the way that players use them provide a new avenue of discussion and help visualize the "tides" of battle. Similarly, the preset equipments as well as the new economic system (whether you like them or not) are also in conflict with the notion "they don't care about competition/esports/etc". Both are deliberate choices to address matters of balance, which are key to any competition. I really can't fathom why some people would argue FOR snowballing in this context. Or the seemingly thoughtless rejection of presets. Surely, you realize that even a greater choice in predetermined equipment ultimately boils down to a number of presets. Surely, you also realize that a greater number of meaningful equipment choices will always unbalance the measurement of individual (1on1) skill as different roles excell against different archetypes. Reducing these choices may, admittedly, inhibit your own personal playstyle but cannot be said to be a sign of desinterest in competition. Quite the contrary, it takes away from the "free" mode to enhance competitive balance ...or at the very least their ability to balance. Lastly, some folks state that skirmish is not competitive whatsoever. This seems like a knee-jerk reaction. While Skirmish may be less competitive in terms of individual fighting prowess, it enhances the role of tactical play. Players not only have to coordinate with each other, they also have to take into account how to best utilize their troops (and lives, etc.). This adds greater weight to their tactical choices, because the AI cannot rely on its twitch-skills to get out of sticky situations. Skirmish may therefore even be the harder game mode - You not only have to fight, but you also need to command. This is a shift in competitive nature and not its removal.
Having said all that, I do believe that there is still a place for Battle. As it represents meeting in the middle of skirmish (tactical focus) and duel (individual focus). And just to be sure - I am not saying that Battle is not tactical, just less so on an individual player basis than Skirmish. It may be best to focus on this aspect and how Battle would add to the MP and competitive experience alongside Skirmish and Duels rather than proclaiming
ChubbyCat14
Recruit
Can someone explain to me, why the hell is it logical to remove a game mode in order to place a much more controversial mode instead? Like all those game modes sound nice to me, but there is absolutely no reason to remove battle mode. The competitive scene is the main thing that kept Warband alive and without a competitive scene on Bannerlord there is no way it will survive.
"If a team backs off and decides to regroup that isn't necessarily a bad thing. There are control points on the map that will force their hand at some point and this is where tough decisions will have to be made about either committing to a fight or re-positioning to try and steady the boat.
Personally, I am a massive fan of Warband's battle mode and think it does a lot of things right. However, Skirmish certainly is growing on me and I think it deserves a chance. We want a game mode for matchmaking that is fast-paced, fun, competitive and accessible to a wider range of players, and Skirmish is currently ticking all these boxes. "
Wait so you went for a game mode that is fast-paced and competitive and then made it so everyone is going to run away after 5 seconds of fighting to regroup because of multiple lives spending most of the time actively not fighting..
You took out feinting and equipment selection and slowed the game down massively, clutch plays and risky moves are kind of pointless with multiple lives. I wonder what boxes you are looking at ticking?
skirmish sounds more like a prolonged battle/tdm style mode with pushes and pull backs and trying to take points like Battlefield 1 Operations, this would be fine as a game mode, its not however fine as the main competitive mode to replace battle and to call it fast paced and exciting
Personally, I am a massive fan of Warband's battle mode and think it does a lot of things right. However, Skirmish certainly is growing on me and I think it deserves a chance. We want a game mode for matchmaking that is fast-paced, fun, competitive and accessible to a wider range of players, and Skirmish is currently ticking all these boxes. "
Wait so you went for a game mode that is fast-paced and competitive and then made it so everyone is going to run away after 5 seconds of fighting to regroup because of multiple lives spending most of the time actively not fighting..
You took out feinting and equipment selection and slowed the game down massively, clutch plays and risky moves are kind of pointless with multiple lives. I wonder what boxes you are looking at ticking?
skirmish sounds more like a prolonged battle/tdm style mode with pushes and pull backs and trying to take points like Battlefield 1 Operations, this would be fine as a game mode, its not however fine as the main competitive mode to replace battle and to call it fast paced and exciting
this sounds neither fast-paced nor fun to me but what do I know I'm just playing since 2013
Duh 说:
There's no bots in Skirmish.
BayBear 说:
That's the point. There will be no need for adjustments because it will be loved by the flood of new players, having no idea what it could have been with warband's battle mode. Having said that, I am slowly getting convinced by the explanations from mod team. Mod feels like less terrible now but not really holding to it.
P.S - This happened before somewhere in some other game, they had to eventually adjust the game to their fan's interests - you will eventually have to add a battle mode as a new game mode because it is the heart and soul of every multiplayer game. No point in not adding both skirmish and battle modes.
Well looks like more fixing for the modders.
Nicely done TW.
Nicely done TW.
Why not just keep Battle mode in as an option? Who cares if it's not completely balanced, it's a fun way to have 200+ players fighting on a map with one life... like a real battle. I see little reason to take content out of the game when it worked pretty well in Warband as a fun mode.
That's not really the point. It's more about simply having the freedom to pick anything. One minute I could decide to have 3 shields and hammer with no armour. It's all about the freedom. That's one reason why Warband Native was so fun to play.
Duh 说:
That's not really the point. It's more about simply having the freedom to pick anything. One minute I could decide to have 3 shields and hammer with no armour. It's all about the freedom. That's one reason why Warband Native was so fun to play.
Gibby Jr 说:
No idea. Wondering if the control points mentioned increase your "morale" which is like a buff or something?
Duh
Duke
Huh, guess I misinterpreted that part of the blog. Apply that part to captain mode then, I guessOurGloriousLeader 说:
Still, I don't see why people would call it uncompetitive. It is a somewhat common battle size (at least if I understood Mahud correctly) and they are aiming to improve the overall balance of the clash (Fewer Presets, Fight or Flight) as well as expand the tactical choices players have to make (Equipment vs. Lives, Hold vs. Retreat). I agree. My argument was more focused on divorcing these aspects from the discussion of competition (as they do serve that particular purpose quite well) and to instead focus on the matter of "They are fun, guys. Why can't we have a casual, fun mode with loads of equipment choices and vast battles that are not sieges?"Age of Empires II: The Densetsu 说:
Antar
Squire
Nothing unusual for some members to freak out when change happens. Happens in basically every community. Just imagine if Warband had the Skirmish game mode and then Bannerlord came out with battle, people would be freaking out, too. But I do agree that it wouldn't be too bad to have Battle mode as an option. Though I'm sure it'd decrease the amount of people willing to give Skirmish a chance, at least long enough to develop and build it to something great.
Difficult situation, good luck Callum and Taleworlds
Bannerlord is a new game. It is supposed to tweak, change, expand, add, innovate. If you wish for a copy paste of Warband then you may as well play Warband. You haven't even tried this new gamemode, and instead of waiting, playing it for yourselves and then forming some constructive feedback about it you prefer to whine on the forums even though you can only barely imagine what you're talking about.
The game will change a lot over time. There might be the classic "battle" as well in future, there might be completely different modes. No reason to be so scared of change, there will be time for testing and for adjusting.
And then they complain about Taleworlds being silent, no wonder, when they dare change a gamemode and some people decide to make such a big fuss out of it.
The game will change a lot over time. There might be the classic "battle" as well in future, there might be completely different modes. No reason to be so scared of change, there will be time for testing and for adjusting.
And then they complain about Taleworlds being silent, no wonder, when they dare change a gamemode and some people decide to make such a big fuss out of it.
Duh 说:Huh, guess I misinterpreted that part of the blog. Apply that part to captain mode then, I guessOurGloriousLeader 说:
I think the reason people are skeptical is because a respawn system only works for certain games in multiplayer and it's not clear M&B will be one of them. MOBAs for example have levelling and a money system so it makes sense, there's still an overall strategy going on. Team Fortress/Overwatch have lots of abilities and unique characters that interact which allows for a complex game and for players to affect the game from any distance.
M&B is unique in that it is melee focused and also more slow paced than other games. For example, depending on how the respawns work, I see this as a direct buff to cavalry and a massive nerf to infantry since cav can spawn and get back to the fight much quicker. Archers will also be buffed since they can affect the fight from further and will have longer to shoot. Good luck to any inf players who spawn at the last control point or whatever and get smashed by 2 cav who can easily run after him then come back to the fight.
This is just assumptions but you see my point, M&B is just a different type of multiplayer game and that's what we like about it, but it means you can't just take modes that work in other games and apply it here. The only experience we have is with Battle which, while flawed, has proven itself to be competitive at least, hence why people are concerned that it's been radically changed and thrown out the window, with little explanation and no testing as of yet. I remain willing to be convinced.
give beta and we'll suck ur peepee
eloquently put my man guacc
Duh 说:
I don't see how fewer equipment options improves the balance of the clash; each faction having their own uniquely strong aspects and equipment and ways for players to assign certain roles via gear selection makes things much more tactical and interesting. it also lets players use the weapons of their choice and have ways to upgrade - nobody snowballs that far out of control cause gear costs a lot and even if you win a few rounds you can still struggle to get tanked up. easy to come back from this if you play well too. should always be a reward for doing well from what callum has said it seems economy system will be reduced to using gold to buy lives and buy perks? not very clear but I can tell you right now that one extra life will be more OP than a full set of tincan is in warband
fight or flight is a decision in existing warband comp battle; decisive engagements involving all team members will always be better than splitting men up, doing so will mean your few will get slaughtered. no competent team will allow the surviving players to run away to regroup with their spawned team mates, especially easy if you have cav or archers left to slow down retreating players. fight decisions will be same again, choosing time to go in on objective as a group, nothing improved here. multiple objectives doesnt even seem bad, and could be very interesting, just the other aspects which seem poorly thought through.
equipment vs. lives is not a choice, more lives will always be better and you will see that as soon as you see competitive players in it. if you can use your gold to buy lives then snowballing is going to get much worse than in warband. if i could take starting swadia gear (1k gold in warband) with 2 lives or tincan (2k gold in warband) with 1 life i would take the starting one 100% of the time; you can easily get more done with worse gear and 2 lives than with better gear and one life. in warband battle as it is at the moment the team with worse gear can still beat the team with better gear via better tactical decisions or better individual play. dont see heavy gear being viable in meta for long - except perhaps for cav but again think the worse gear option is better
