Dev Blog 15/03/18

[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

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

That is not how any of this works. You have not paid a single dime for Bannerlord. You are not owed anything. Nor do you owe TW anything. They can make the game in whatever way they deem appropriate. And you can buy it or ignore it. That's really all there is to the matter of entitlement. Right now TW is here and engaging the community on their development process - more so than it has for some time, I would say - and you can either scream and kick and cry... or take the opportunity to provide them with sensible, usable feedback.

This exactly. x100

Obvious or not, entitlement issues with today's individuals lead to issues such as this. Instead of practicing patience and waiting for the game to arrive and see for themselves what features there are, and how fun they may or may not be, immediate rejection is the astonishingly stupid solution.

Please, community, just have patience and see what comes of it. If you don't like it, don't play it.

 

[Astinus]

Those this mean we won't also have TDM nor DM and that sieges will be the only "fun" mode?

Why?

 

[Scarf Ace]

That is not how any of this works. You have not paid a single dime for Bannerlord. You are not owed anything. Nor do you owe TW anything. They can make the game in whatever way they deem appropriate. And you can buy it or ignore it. That's really all there is to the matter of entitlement. Right now TW is here and engaging the community on their development process - more so than it has for some time, I would say - and you can either scream and kick and cry... or take the opportunity to provide them with sensible, usable feedback.

This exactly. x100

Obvious or not, entitlement issues with today's individuals lead to issues such as this. Instead of practicing patience and waiting for the game to arrive and see for themselves what features there are, and how fun they may or may not be, immediate rejection is the astonishingly stupid solution.

Please, community, just have patience and see what comes of it. If you don't like it, don't play it.

Get off your high horse. Criticising a design decision is not entitlement, neither is mocking the absurdity of it.

 

[Silen]

Those this mean we won't also have TDM nor DM and that sieges will be the only "fun" mode?

Why?

No. As Duh said above somewhere this wasn't confirmed nor denied.

 

[DanAngleland]

Although not a big fan of battle mode (I prefer siege), I don't see why we can't have it as well as the new modes- it need not be accessed by matchmaking (though clans may want that for small matches), obviously that wouldn't make sense when you potentially have 100+ players per side, but being able to manually join a server for battle should still be an option. It's a very different experience from the Captain battles or Skirmish where there are very few human players, so offers something different and wouldn't necessarily be a competitor to the new game modes- obviously there will be a given total number of Bannerlord players at any time, but there should be enough to sustain the Captain Battle and Skirmish modes in addition to normal Battle at any time if the new modes are popular. I don't see the logic in doing away with a relatively popular game mode (unlike Capture the Flag and Conquest which, sadly for those who like variety, fell out of favour with most of the community after the first few months of Warband).

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

Get off your high horse. Criticising a design decision is not entitlement, neither is mocking the absurdity of it.

Sorry man, I'm just saying that this behavior you and many others are exhibiting is not helping your cause. Do you give a screaming child candy? No, you tell them to shut up.

I get many of you are upset, but seriously, why let your emotions take control of reason? Ask questions that may bear fruit, instead of throwing around insults and temper tantrums.

 

[_Osiris_]

rage seemed to have an effect on EA so why not try ^^

 

[Guaccmoleboy]

Get off your high horse. Criticising a design decision is not entitlement, neither is mocking the absurdity of it.

Sorry man, I'm just saying that this behavior you and many others are exhibiting is not helping your cause. Do you give a screaming child candy? No, you tell them to shut up.

I get many of you are upset, but seriously, why let your emotions take control of reason? Ask questions that may bear fruit, instead of throwing around insults and temper tantrums.

that is what we're doing -snip-

 

[Scarf Ace]

Get off your high horse. Criticising a design decision is not entitlement, neither is mocking the absurdity of it.

Sorry man, I'm just saying that this behavior you and many others are exhibiting is not helping your cause. Do you give a screaming child candy? No, you tell them to shut up.

I get many of you are upset, but seriously, why let your emotions take control of reason? Ask questions that may bear fruit, instead of throwing around insults and temper tantrums.

Wow, you're so daft you can't tell the difference between "this obviously is a bad decision" and rage! That's actually sort of impressive.
Whatever, it makes you feel good about yourself, so keep going.

 

[Silen]

And the insults fly again. Thank you so much for such display of manners and constructive discussion.

 

[_Osiris_]

Well when people have played a game and mode they love for countless years and worked to improve the competitive rules and tournaments and are super hyped for bannerlord then they post pretty much "lol no battle for you" people are gonna be mad

 

[Duh]

Addressing said claim (brought forth by the community) was all there was to the statements on popularity.

People played it non-competitively, in fairly large numbers. How in the hell is that not popular enough to justify its reimplementation?

Again, this was about the community proclaimed confusion about the removal of the MOST popular mode. That claim was rectified. No argument was made against battle on the basis of its popularity. It is, in fact, one of the reasons why I am for its implementation. However, the more arguments you provide, the stronger your case becomes.

It was my point in response to your claim that TW was too focused on competitive gameplay.

My point stands well, TW's stated reason for removing Battle is on competitive grounds, when non-competitive players use it too. Frankly I'm flabbergasted that you haven't grasped this.

The competitive side of the coin only concerns competitive battles (5v5-8v. There are likely other reasons for the removal of non-competitive battles (200+) in the matchmaking. Whether these are legitimate or sufficient.... I don't know... but I am not too concerned about MM, if we do have the options for Battles and other modes on community servers.

That is not how any of this works. You have not paid a single dime for Bannerlord. You are not owed anything. Nor do you owe TW anything. They can make the game in whatever way they deem appropriate. And you can buy it or ignore it. That's really all there is to the matter of entitlement. Right now TW is here and engaging the community on their development process - more so than it has for some time, I would say - and you can either scream and kick and cry... or take the opportunity to provide them with sensible, usable feedback.

We're trying to say here that you've made an awful decision, and that the reasons given for it are absurd. We've given reasons. You replied to my reasons. We're ridiculing you because we want to point out how utterly dumb this decision is, it's a harsh form of feedback that very clearly states the opinions of the people here who are not happy with the decision.

You do realize that I am a community member much like you? I am not a TW employee. I may know a tiny bit more than other users, but for the most part my role is to enable and facilitate the constructive communication on this forum. Ridicule in the form of insults, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on the forum -btw- as you know, since you agreed to the rules upon registration.

 

[Electre]

Don't mind my previous post some pages ago, trees in the gif do move.

Regarding Battle, I give it 5 days after Bannerlord is released for a modder to have made it and hosts it.

 

[Erminas]

Keep it civil people!

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

Wow, you're so daft you can't tell the difference between "this obviously is a bad decision" and rage! That's actually sort of impressive.
Whatever, it makes you feel good about yourself, so keep going.

Very little of the "disagreements" posted on this thread, and other threads before, seem so practical as "this is obviously a bad decision", yourself included. In fact, look to Guaccmole. Name calling with nothing else to contribute. Nice example of what I am talking about.

I saw the link you posted so I stand corrected in that manner. Regardless, I still think you should give Bannerlord a try before passing judgement. If you don't, well, that is your decision. But why spoil this and other threads with childish tantrums for posters who use this to engage in C&C on a civil scale? Why not start a thread for posting volatile discourse?

A quick note, I am not your enemy and I am not attacking you or anyone. I am merely discussing matters as I read them. If you feel I am wrong in sensing your "rage", perhaps consider your language. As it stands, I cannot help but imagine you and others as petulant children who are refused their candy.

 

[Scarf Ace]

Again, this was about the community proclaimed confusion about the removal of the MOST popular mode. That claim was rectified. No argument was made against battle on the basis of its popularity. It is, in fact, one of the reasons why I am for its implementation. However, the more arguments you provide, the stronger your case becomes.

I never argued that it was the most popular mode, and either way being anal on that point is kinda pointless - it IS popular for very good reasons.

The competitive side of the coin only concerns competitive battles (5v5-8v. There are likely other reasons for the removal of non-competitive battles (200+) in the matchmaking. Whether these are legitimate or sufficient.... I don't know... but I am not too concerned about MM, if we do have the options for Battles and other modes on community servers.

From what I can gather they don't plan to have it in at all, matchmaking or not. That's what people are arguing about because MM probably isn't well suited for such gameplay unless MB:BL were to go full PUBG-style flavour-of-the-year.

That is not how any of this works. You have not paid a single dime for Bannerlord. You are not owed anything. Nor do you owe TW anything. They can make the game in whatever way they deem appropriate. And you can buy it or ignore it. That's really all there is to the matter of entitlement. Right now TW is here and engaging the community on their development process - more so than it has for some time, I would say - and you can either scream and kick and cry... or take the opportunity to provide them with sensible, usable feedback.

We told them the decision is absurd, the reason given is absurd, and I'd say that people here have given sufficient reason as to why this is the case. When people are surprised at something they find absurd, you better expect them to respond with mockery and/or insults (among more reasoned arguments, which in this case are just as abundant).
Mockery gets used a lot on these forums - TW should be able to deal with the environment they've fostered.

You do realize that I am a community member much like you? I am not a TW employee. I may know a tiny bit more than other users, but for the most part my role is to enable and facilitate the constructive communication on this forum. Ridicule in the form of insults, flaming or trolling is not tolerated on the forum -btw- as you know, since you agreed to the rules upon registration.

Well you clearly haven't enforced it to the extent that people seem to want to follow these guidelines. Calling a dumb decision dumb is very much normal for this site.

 

[Duh]

The link he posted and Callum's statement in that message to Fietta have since been somewhat "overruled" by his more recent statements in response to the community uproar. Now before you get all excited, that doesn't mean that they WILL change their approach to things. It only means that they may change that approach. That Callum will take the feedback provided here to the developers and discuss things with them - based on the arguments that you provide.

I have posted this before - but just to clarify, this is the more recent stance on the matter:

Callum, have you considered Battle as a side thing to keep the magic of 200+ player battles for fun? Like Duh said, keeping it for the reason of fun instead of competitiveness.

I will be forwarding all of the feedback we have received about this on Monday and will add this to the list. I just don't think people should expect to see Battle as a matchmaking game mode, but we will see I guess.

OK, I managed to catch up with it all and have noted your feedback. I will share it with the rest of the team on Monday. What I will say is don't work yourselves up into a frenzy before you actually see what we have on offer when the game comes out: there is a possibility that we will have other game modes, although admittedly they will probably not be through match making on our servers (but we will still have a server list and people will be able to host servers). I will get back to you when I know more.

You can learn more about stalking profiles here:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=480289 

We told them the decision is absurd, the reason given is absurd, and I'd say that people here have given sufficient reason as to why this is the case

All I have gathered so far from your comments is that the removal of battle is "dumb and absurd" because it was popular in an old game. Not the most convincing case or helpful input for Callum to make an argument with.

Things like this

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the information I think it's pretty disappointing, saying we can simply make a mod to solve it is also frustrating since mods usually exist on only a fraction of the base games population and it has the risk of splitting the competitive scene between the vanilla game and a battle mode mod.

Of the changes the least concerning to me is the character equipment issue. It's true it adds some depth but equipment picking tends to move towards a singular or very small selection of optimal builds. If you think about what builds you take in warband matches, mostly it's the same.

I don't think multiple lives will be good for a competitive game mode, it's just got a lot less tension and feels a lot more arcadey. I think it's a great idea to have life limits for casual game modes though.

6v6 is also a bad idea, 5v5 tournaments are boring and defensive types of games and provide far less options for interesting builds and tactics.

I am all onboard with having multiple objectives, I am willing to give that a go, but I hope they consider putting in a way to have only 1 life and boost the player numbers, think those two things are definitely the biggest issues.

are a fair bit more helpful. Personally, I have argued that the casual Battle - much like Siege and other large scale modes - offer players an environment that is not as "stressful", because their individual impact on the game is of less consequence to other players. It is a good environment for newcomers and for players that just want to have some fun. That is not the case for captain mode or skirmish where your screw-up is likely to have more of an immediate and visible (and repeated) effect on a match. At least in public match making with other public players, this means that you are always feeling a pressure to perform. Sure, some folks may take that as an opportunity to troll others, but the regular player in a healthy community will try to support his team. And this is fun and engaging as well - but less carefree. Battle only has this" stress" at the very end of a round... and it leaves you less open to salty remarks... because most people have died and arent really in a position to criticize. At the same time Battle is far from being without ... tension and excitement. Because you have only 1 life. Something that could benefit other game modes as well, which the devs should consider (and test) as an optional choice for them.

Edith: Another good bit of feedback

you should've known this far from waiting on bannerlords - Taleworlds doesn't care about the Multiplayer community. sad but a fact

Well that certainly isn't true, but people make mistakes. TaleWorlds has made mistakes before, and they've also corrected many of them. They may yet fix this one, because it certainly is a mistake.

Warband has a conquest mode with multiple cap points, but I haven't seen it played since beta. It was quickly ignored in favor of plain ol' Battle. F&D was another multiple objective-based game mode, but it didn't survive very long either. The thing about Battle--in my mind--is that the only way to win is to face your opponent directly. Whether you do that before or after the flag spawns is up to you (or the server settings, as competitive Warband has been moving up the flag spawn to very early in the round) but either way the outcome is almost always decided by who fights better.

Other game modes, in contrast, quickly fostered gimmicky tricks or indirect, low-risk approaches. In CTF, a single guy can ride up to the enemy's flag on a horse, dismount and re-mount his horse on top of the flag, and ride off back to his flag for a quick capture. In conquest, teams can avoid direct confrontation by rotating between cap zones and back-capping with a couple of players while the rest of the team skirmishes with the enemy. F&D was the worst for a while, where cav would just couch their lances and annihilate the objectives in one or two quick passes. This behavior was addressed, but the dominant strategy in F&D still ended up being hit & run with cavalry.

My point here is that all of the other game modes have objectives that don't entirely depend on you fighting your opponents, but fighting is what M&B is best at. Battle is the mode that says "fight or lose," and I can tell you now the most complex & interesting interactions you ever saw in Warband were players fighting each other. It's more structured than TDM, always forces confrontation, and rewards skillful play.

The proof is in the pudding, really. We've been tinkering with Battle for years because at its core it's an excellent game mode. Every change made to it has had the effect of paring it down to its essence, which is the fight. What we want most of all is that.

[...] you better expect them to respond with mockery and/or insults [...] Well you clearly haven't enforced it to the extent that people seem to want to follow these guidelines. Calling a dumb decision dumb is very much normal for this site.

We have always refrained from a "totalitarian" approach, but if people insist on breaking rules they will end up permanently removed from the forum. The dev blogs and topics relevant to development also receive more scrutiny than other areas may receive... for obvious reasons.

 

[Duchess Skye]

I know I'm terribly late to this discussion (got time outed for absolutely nothing I tells ye) but removing battle on the basis that it is not a good competitive gamemode is stupid.

Not many people played battle because it was competitive, they played it because it was fun. Me included. There's a certain satisfaction about a mode where you have one life and then you're out for the rest of the round.

Removing it from the game was one of TWs worse calls.

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

Something I would like to be made a bit more clear is the role of morale in the Skirmish mode. So as I understand it, victory is determined by actual kills and morale? And morale is just another name for points when it comes to "capturing" locations, forcing players to move continuously?

Being 6v6, I guess there are not bots, so morale serves no other function?

 

[Duh]

I believe you either win through killing the enemy team until they have no more "lifes" OR by depleting their morale through capturing enough flags.

what on earth is the morale system then?

It is a mechanic which forces teams to be more active on the map rather than camping an area and waiting for a flag spawn. Basically there are 3 flags on the map, if you hold more of these flags than the other team their team morale will start to decay, if it entirely depletes they lose the round. After a certain amount of time, 2 of the flags are removed: the system looks to see who is holding the flags and will always try to take 1 flag off each team. The system also looks to see if any of the flags are being contested, so if one team owns 2 flags, it will remove one flag and keep the one which there is a fight taking place around.