Gamescom event is poorly setup and feels half arsed.

[OneOrThrEe]

Yeah i agree with the combat speed stuff. It's too slow with 1handed and too fast with 2handed. Also there are unbalanced factions like vlandia which is way too op- and it's vouglier by far the strongest 2h unit.

Also dodging matches is a problem because leave punishment is not applied if you leave before you spawn. Which will change once the client is stable enough and matchmaker works better. Then if you dodge a match, you are gonna have to wait for the punishment to end. Still there can be situations you would dodge a game but I don't think it is a big issue as long as it s not a good option most of the time.

It will still be luck dependant and hella frustrating. Lot more frustrating for sure, because then you would also have 0 control of if you win or not. That would be a terrible idea unless the event were extra short. And ofc if it were short a single"bad" matchup would make you lose. Where is the fun in that ?

I am personally against the idea of tournaments for events. Tournaments bring it down to pure skill. Nothing else. I know skilled players prefer that for obvious reasons but it would alienate even more people. If top 100 wants to determine who is the best, they can do so whenever they want. I mean don't get me wrong, I am not saying most kills were any better. But I don't think tournaments are the solution.

The problem with this is that, anyway, if the event is like what it was now it will still be the most skilled players that win. If you want any hope for casual players to get some rare or nice badge you would need to make it a hidden badge event where you don't even know what the goal is until the event ends. Like maybe headshot 2 times in a row with a ranged weapon- break 2 shields in 1 round of skirmish- capture a flag 3 times in a round of skirmish- be in the radius of flag G while winning the siege as an attacker- destroy a catapult as a defender-mount a horse as a pesant and get a kill- get 10 assists in a game- die from fall damage- win/lose a game with time elapse on skirmish- win a 1v3 as a last player standing in skirmish- kill 3 players with rocks/fire pots in 1 siege game- win a skirmish round without dying once- get a kill with a throwing weapon in melee mode-i can go on forever u get the point. Events can be fun and still be so that you don't feel stressed by some mad grind like this was.

And if you don't want to hide the badge until its over than it will either be a race that skilled players will win - or it will be a very common badge that most players will get easily. What im saying is that race based tournament, like we had, will have the same playerpool of winners as a tournament would. So if you really are for casuals having a chance please consider what i wrote.
I think i'd rly enjoy a hidden badge event where we only get a small clue to what we need to do to get the badge, that would be fun and would inspire players to play in many different ways, and would not force them to do 1 boring thing for hours on end.

I don't think it is possible to get rid of luck without making it fully controlled like a tournament. Which is not feasible to do in a short amount of time, with thousands of players.

Yes imbrace the luck. Remove the skill. Or make it skill only and remove the luck. Don't mix those 2 i beg you. It is very frustrating and breeds toxicity when you have evenly skilled players doing a evenly good job but one wins over the other just because of luck. If it's only luck it is stress free because you can't control it . If it's only skill then it's fully on you if you lose or not - no excuse to hate on anything or anyone.
Seperate those skill and luck events.

- p.s. that idea about it being 3 consecutive hours with most kills that count will still require a full day grind for best chances to win, and the winners will still be the same player pool. Won't fix anything. Hell it would also make it worse because u'd be telling yourself how this 1,unlucky, match ruined your streak and now you gotta start over again. Please don't do anything simmilar to this event that we had now.

 

[azakhi]

I don't think mixing luck, skill and grind is a bad thing. Lots of games are that way and it is still fun. Consider Path of Exile ladders for example. They have races to for example level 80, which takes around 4 hours if I remember correctly, it is quite fun to participate, quite fun to follow the leaderboard.
I also think it should still require skill but should not be fully dependent on skill.
I actually disagree with whole post now that I think of, guess we have different opinions on what the issues are.
In my opinion trying a similar thing with improvements wouldn't hurt, we would learn more. Just like we did from this one.

 

[OneOrThrEe]

Sure but whats the playerbase of path of exile ? And what is the playerbase of bannerlord MP?
And also PoE is inherently luck based with item drops and certain mobs spawning and so on. Also PoE is a PvE game. Players can't sabotage one another. There are so many reasons why u can't compare those 2.
And also how common are those events ? And what are the rewards?
Here

Spoiler: PoE events

Races are divided into seasons, each lasting around six weeks. Every season has its own leaderboard and a special set of alternate art item prizes.

• Race season 1 ran from February 23rd to April 7th, 2013 with a total of 109 events.
• Race season 2 ran from April 20th to June 6th, 2013 with a total of 260 events.
• Race season 3 ran from June 29th to August 11th, 2013 with a total of 161 events.
• Race season 4 ran from August 31st to October 13th, 2013 with a total of 162 events.
• Race season 5 ran from November 16th to December 29th, 2013 with a total of 160 events.
• Race season 6 ran from January 11th to February 23rd, 2014 with a total of 177 events.
• Race season 7 ran from March 29th to May 11th, 2014 with a total of 190 events.
• Race season 8 ran from June 7th to July 20th, 2014 with a total of 190 events.
• Race season 9 ran from October 25th to November 21st, 2014 with a total of 120 events.
• Race season 10 ran from December 23th to January 19th, 2015 with a total of 120 events.
• Race season 11 ran from February 15th to March 14th, 2015 with a total of 120 events.
• Emberwake race season (Season 12) ran from July 24th to August 20th, 2015 with a total of 120 events.
• Bloodgrip race season (Season 13) ran from September 4th to October 1st, 2015 with a total of 120 events.
• Soulthirst race season (Season 14) ran from November 6th to December 3rd, 2015 with a total of 155 events.
• Winterheart race season (Season 15) ran from January 29th to February 25, 2016 with a total of 155 events.
• Medallion race season (Season 16) ran from July 23rd to August 19, 2016 with a total of 125 events.

Now you see the problem ? You get nice ingame stuff and grind makes sense. Also there is so many that it doesnt matter if you lose. Here it's all or nothing. There it really is for fun even if you lose. Because you know you can just try another one straight away. Here what do you have ? I played PoE a few hundred hours. It's entirely different and not fair to just say they have 4 hours luck+ skill based events so can we. Bannerlord isn't ready for this kinda stuff. And this event shows it. Try something simmilar again and again you will see.
Mainly PoE events cannot be sabotaged by other players. Huge difference. Unless you want to police every server in the game..

 

[๖Kern]

I don't think mixing luck, skill and grind is a bad thing. Lots of games are that way and it is still fun. Consider Path of Exile ladders for example. They have races to for example level 80, which takes around 4 hours if I remember correctly, it is quite fun to participate, quite fun to follow the leaderboard.
I also think it should still require skill but should not be fully dependent on skill.
I actually disagree with whole post now that I think of, guess we have different opinions on what the issues are.
In my opinion trying a similar thing with improvements wouldn't hurt, we would learn more. Just like we did from this one.

Well, as someone who loves Path of Exile and has played multiple leagues up to this point, I can't say that these games can be compared. Path of Exile targets a very different niche and also, when it comes to high-end gameplay, isn't a game that is centred around skill but more around knowledge. This can't be said about titles like Warband and Bannerlord, where the grind is really the only way to build up your muscle memory and develop your playstyle. Other than this, I mostly agree with what you said in your previous posts

EDIT: Misunderstood your post.

Well, I respect your opinion but I don't agree, I like fact that your delivery was as it should be without the toxicity or the salt tho, thank you. I don't know who were those experienced players you're talking about but I don't see it as a step in the right direction in any way, pre-attack animation time has been reduced but the actual attack(swing/thrust) time was increased, first part is alright but the second part actually made it worse in the end. I spent a fair deal of time in previous titles and even when I tried my best to stay away from Bannerlord by taking long breaks, to not burn out my will to play it, I still clocked in ~500 hours in EA and an additional ~300 hours in Closed Beta. Before Bannerlord 2,3 k on WFaS. I don't know the count for the original because I got it as a promotional DVD in 2009, I estimate nothing south of 4 k, for 2 summers I was totally hooked with the original, when it was the school session I still played a decent amount usually everyday. So for an old fan like me combat is very slow, for a total newbie to the series it's unappealing to say the least. SP combat is decent enough (been a while, I'll try the SP in newest version soon), in MP they gave too much leverage to the defending side, which made the combat painfully slow. Maybe a combat test similar to what had been done in beta could be done again when they come up with different versions.

And most of us are nowhere behind you in experience with previous titles, trust me. Bannerlord's combat was horrible in alpha, beta and even in early access. The 1.5 update changed things for the better and that is something most of the people here on forums agree with, it actually brought it closer to what Warband or WFaS felt like, so not sure where is your resentment coming from. Obviously, it's not quite there yet, in fact, pretty far away still, but if you think pre-1.5 combat was better, I don't think I have anything to tell you anymore, I don't believe so.

 

[EbdanianAdmiral]

I’m just glad we can sit in here and have a conversation about what’s the best way to do this in the future. Taleworlds in the past along with 80% of other companies wouldn’t really bother with the dialog currently taking place.

 

[Aprikosenmann]

Killgrind in a TEAMGAME is KEKW

What the hell is wrong with X Games in X Days.
Some competitive players would play 100 games on 4 days, and they get the badge -> nice
Some casuals would play 100 games in 4 day and get the badge -> nice
Archers, Inf and Cav players would get the badge -> nice
Skirmish is played as intended (As a teamgame) -> nice
Who the hell plays 100 games in 4 days, the badge would still be rare as fvck. Maybe 3% would do it... -> nice

 

[๖Kern]

...

Bannerlord is perfectly ready for events like this, it's the execution that failed. I have to agree though, that the only way to make the grind fair would be a controlled environment, almost impossible for large scale event.

Killgrind in a TEAMGAME is KEKW

What the hell is wrong with X Games in X Days.
Some competitive players would play 100 games on 4 days, and they get the badge -> nice
Some casuals would play 100 games in 4 day and get the badge -> nice
Archers, Inf and Cav players would get the badge -> nice
Skirmish is played as intended (As a teamgame) -> nice
Who the hell plays 100 games in 4 days, the badge would still be rare as fvck. Maybe 3% would do it... -> nice

And the 3% would get Intel CPUs with MSRP of 359$, yikes. TaleWorlds wanted to implement the concept of exclusivity, therefore it ended up with an event where only a few people could have "won".

 

[OneOrThrEe]

Ok let me make this painfully clear. This event was a torture for participants and for many players that were affected by them. Do I even need to explain why ?
Ok so lemme ask you this if you still disagree.
What would you do next time? Like any specifics ? What do you think is an event that would have both skill and luck and be LIMITED to a few players and fun AND most importantly fair???

And also please answer this:
1. What is your goal with a reward based event ? Do you want that only the most skilled players have a winning chance or also casuals ?
2. Do you think that casual players have any chance to win a rare badge unless you hide it or make it purely luck based ? By casual i mean players who just came from SP(that can't even block/have bad movement/ aim/ game knowelege).

 

[Aprikosenmann]

And the 3% would get Intel CPUs with MSRP of 359$, yikes. TaleWorlds wanted to implement the concept of exclusivity, therefore it ended up with an event where only a few people could have "won".

THE BADGE DUDE. Its better to draw randomly a winner for the cpu out of all that got the badge instead of forcing this ultra high stakes sweaty tryhard grind.

 

[๖Kern]

THE BADGE DUDE. Its better to draw randomly a winner for the cpu out of all that got the badge instead of forcing this ultra high stakes sweaty tryhard grind.

That was a quite obvious sarcasm, people obviously aren’t going to get dozens up to hundreds of cpus for XXX matches.

2. Do you think that casual players have any chance to win a rare badge unless you hide it or make it purely luck based ? By casual i mean players who just came from SP(that can't even block/have bad movement/ aim/ game knowelege).

Honestly, as a developer, would you rather have a guy with 100 hours, who mostly plays singleplayer and occasionaly gives multiplayer a go win the rewards rather than someone who spends multiple hundreds of hours in MP trying to learn the game as much as possible? I think it makes perfect sense for the second guy to win, because he spends much more time playing the game, he probably has much more affection for the game too. Now, this isn’t very casual friendly, but how do you really reward casual players? Can’t be skill based, only luck based. Letting people sign up for lottery is not the right approach, pure grinding, unless in controlled environment, isn’t either.

 

[OneOrThrEe]

Honestly, as a developer, would you rather have a guy with 100 hours, who mostly plays singleplayer and occasionaly gives multiplayer a go win the rewards rather than someone who spends multiple hundreds of hours in MP trying to learn the game as much as possible? I think it makes perfect sense for the second guy to win, because he spends much more time playing the game, he probably has much more affection for the game too. Now, this isn’t very casual friendly, but how do you really reward casual players? Can’t be skill based, only luck based. Letting people sign up for lottery is not the right approach, pure grinding, unless in controlled environment, isn’t either.

Yes. But from what i've read - devs don't want an event that is controlled because only the skilled players would win.
The problem is that even with an event like this the skilled players would win.
So why not give us a controlled skillbased event for the big rewards ?
That is my whole point. Here look:

Finally once again, I think you guys are looking at this from wrong perspective. It is not a best of X kinda thing. It is an event. Skill is not everything.

Skill is NEVER everything

I am personally against the idea of tournaments for events. Tournaments bring it down to pure skill. Nothing else. I know skilled players prefer that for obvious reasons but it would alienate even more people. If top 100 wants to determine who is the best, they can do so whenever they want. I mean don't get me wrong, I am not saying most kills were any better. But I don't think tournaments are the solution.

All this is plain wrong. Skill will be the choosing factor of winners. The playerpool that wins this kind of event would be the one that would win all the controled skillbased tournaments.
The only difference is that your version would have a luck factor that is not fun - while the tournament version would be truly fair.

Having organised skillbased tournaments would make getting better in the game more fun. People would want to know how to play so that they would have a chance to win something sometimes..
With grind based event you can "train" but its ludacris - no fun - no real measurement because you need luck more than anything.

And finally:

I still don't understand why you guys are thinking we are trying to achieve something with that badge other than it being an event. Why would we choose something 99% of players will immediately ignore because they think they can't do it to make people play the game. I honestly don't understand where this idea is coming from. Please enlighten me.

99% of players can't win competition events anyway. Right ? You must know that already ..
So if you want to give out rewards or difficult/limited badges that aren't pure luck you must know that 99% players aren't gonna win them luck or no luck.
Adding luck just makes those limited winner events frustrating.
There is feedback. I won the tourn. And im still here telling you it's no good like this.
For casual players it would be fun to have hidden lucky badges that you get by random playing the game.
Some easy badges for casuals to chase somethin too.
But mixing skilled players with casuals in a competative event would just make them get rekt every. single. time.
What exacly don't you agree with ? Isn't this obvious as it can be ?