BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

[Dextrus]

So I am gonna go ahead and say it.

We need a vote on harsher class limits. This patch is unplayable for anything but archers and Cav. 2/2/2 is king and it is the most boring, pointless and frustrating thing to play. The only way to play against it is to play 2/2/2 yourself.

Heavy inf is there to die, distract some and wait for your archers and Cav to rack up some kills.
Light inf just dies straight up anyway.

I suggest asking wether to

1. Keep the current limits
2. Impose a limit of min. 3 Inf spawns
3. Limit archer to max 1
4. Limit Cav to max 1
5. Limit cav and archer together to a maximum of 3

We can also switch some of these around and/or put them together.

BEAST might actually just die while playing this.
I and many of DR Furor are already sick of it.
I know DM is, too, I think.

 

[Ikea Knight]

Grand.
First forcing a class restricition and then be upset that competetiv play can't evolve because the devs absolutly disagree with it.

 

[TheBard]

The class restriction wasn't forced, the teams voted openly about in BEAST#1 and #2. Stop distorting facts.

 

[Dextrus]

Grand.
First forcing a class restricition and then be upset that competetiv play can't evolve because the devs absolutly disagree with it.

There is nothing to evolve to. Evolving means more archers, more cav, one or no inf.
Sounds like Mount and Blade to me.

 

[WakaWaka]

Grand.
First forcing a class restricition and then be upset that competetiv play can't evolve because the devs absolutly disagree with it.

if a remember well, there was a vote, and like 90% of the team vote for it.

 

[Namakan]

There is nothing to evolve to. Evolving means more archers, more cav, one or no inf.
Sounds like Mount and Blade to me.

Evolving means bringing the game into a better state where scenarios like the one you just described won't happen. The exact opposite of what you said.


I'm not gonna bother playing a tournament that castrates the game beyond the current, somewhat reasonable point. I'd prefer having no limits to actually show the devs what's actually wrong but with infs are having a cry-circlejerk about how bad their class is that's not gonna happen I guess.

All classes currently need adjustments to make the game (and especially inf) more fun to play, but yall fail to see that further restrictions just aren't the way there.

Lieber ein Ende mit Schrecken als ein Schrecken ohne Ende.

 

[TheBard]

Alright then, I am convinced, let's burn it all down, if that endless discussion ends finally, here we go.
I am not allowed to change the votes of my clan though.

 

[Dextrus]

Evolving means bringing the game into a better state where scenarios like the one you just described won't happen. The exact opposite of what you said.

But we are in no position to evolve the game. We can only react and adapt.

All classes currently need adjustments to make the game (and especially inf) more fun to play, but yall fail to see that further restrictions just aren't the way there.

But BEAST, in my mind, is not made to figure out adjustment. I think/thought that it is about fun and keeping the game alive. Further restrictions, in my mind, are a way to make the game balanced (keeping infantry played) and notfor it to devolve into a 4 on 4 shootout, with third person peeking.

 

[Ikea Knight]

The class restriction wasn't forced, the teams voted openly about in BEAST#1 and #2. Stop distorting facts.

True wrong word.

 

[Aprikosenmann]

6. Limit Cav to 1 and Archer to 1

EDIT: Lets be honest, cav is so OP on 1.5.6 that even limiting cav to 0 max sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Einarcf]

I think we could use harsher rules, if AVRC's project comes to fruition. BEAST could be arena for playing fun (and still balanced) matches. While this new tournament could act as testing grounds. We will also have NA tournament soon with no limits. With all these testing grounds, BEAST could and should remain a place for fights with an emphasis on infantry fights.

*Edit* I think adding a rule "minimum 3 inf" is reasonable. Minimum 4 inf sounds too static to me. Maybe have special exemption for Khuzait. They are worst faction with these limits.

*Edit 2* With Weekend cup, another tournament without limits is also coming.

 

[Forsee]

There should be one more patch before BEAST4 starts. It can change things up.
I mean if archs\cav are just a little bit op and annoying to play against, the limit of max 2 cav and max 2 archers is fine and should work well, but if archs\cav will destroy everything, limiting it to a maximum of 1 would be the best option.
I think right now limits exist mainly not to avoid frustrating gameplay, but to manually balance the game in general

 

[Dest_wastaken]

With Weekend cup, another tournament with limits is also coming.

Might be typo but Weekend Cup is without limits.

Spoiler: Also

Yes force more infs artificially, so they can nerf it even harder.

Outside of memes: I think even at this state (which I agree is a really awful state for balance) if we let the meta find itself we would be playing with some infs on all maps except Trading Post. And teams playing openest maps without inf was pretty common in Warband, I dont understand why Bannerlord community is hard triggered by it, like 80% of you played matches in Warband, right?

Another point I'd like to make is: We recently played in a 6v6 Warband tourney for nostalgia. Thus something I noticed while thinking of setups there is even in Warband Battle 6v6 (compared to 8v8 ) you either go all inf(2 cav 4 inf) or almost no inf in 6v6 because when the inf doesnt have the staying togather as a group power (and 2 inf dont make same type of group), inf gets very abusable. Furthermore in Bannerlord Skirmish; respawns in the same round make guerilla type tactics more viable and sometimes more advantageous. Now when you have factions like Aserai and khuzait where playing inf instead of something else feels very not "fun", and their inf not being so good is also part of their factional identity in mp. At the end making inf viable in open while not making it OP in closed is a very delicate target to hit.

Altough I am disgusted that devs literally tried to bribe us with badges. In my honest opinion if we are not planning to play with class limits 2,3 heck even 5,6 years later we need to abolish it. More we delay, more painful it will be. Worst case scenerio is devs actually somehow nailing a state of balance by mistake mid-tourney, making people sour about the previous match results.

 

[Aeronwen]

Altough I am disgusted that devs literally tried to bribe us with badges. In my honest opinion if we are not planning to play with class limits 2,3 heck even 5,6 years later we need to abolish it. More we delay, more painful it will be. Worst case scenerio is devs actually somehow nailing a state of balance by mistake mid-tourney, making people sour about the previous match results.

The devs did not try to bribe us. The admins asked. As we have continually stated we have always been against class limits, for the reason you stated above
if we are not planning to play with class limits 2,3 heck even 5,6 years later we need to abolish it.

There is nothing else as useful as competitive players in teams already organised into skill based divisions playing the same maps and factions across all divisions each week for good data to balance the game.
I understand why inf only players and inf heavy teams wont like it but it's the same deal they are happy to force onto archers and cavs ^^

 

[Fietta]

AVRC will make his own tournament without class limits, let's not ruin the BEAST tournament for the sake of a badge and let AVRC test the skirmish parameters, BEAST don't need to contribute. BEAST is the 'community's tournament' and not a tournament used for testing, keep it that way.

 

[IceNoVa]

It's evident to me that we've got basically two sides in this debate.

1) Class limits are necessary for a fun experience.
2) No limits would provide useful data to aid balancing towards a game that does not need the limits to be fun.

Those aren't exclusive in what they are getting at, the issue is that group 1 is not keen on playing for two months with the expectation of the entire tournament not being fun. On the other hand group 2 aims to endure a potentially annoying two months to maybe have the game be better afterwards, which is optimistic and group 1 doesn't share that optimism.
Personally, before I even consider option 2 I really want to see the changes in next week's patch. Because if we go by how things are now, the tournament would most likely be not fun for the vast majority of players that participate and that has direct implications for future participation for all teams just in it for fun.

 

[Forsee]

It's evident to me that we've got basically two sides in this debate.

1) Class limits are necessary for a fun experience.
2) No limits would provide useful data to aid balancing towards a game that does not need the limits to be fun.

Those aren't exclusive in what they are getting at, the issue is that group 1 is not keen on playing for two months with the expectation of the entire tournament not being fun. On the other hand group 2 aims to endure a potentially annoying two months to maybe have the game be better afterwards, which is optimistic and group 1 doesn't share that optimism.
Personally, before I even consider option 2 I really want to see the changes in next week's patch. Because if we go by how things are now, the tournament would most likely be not fun for the vast majority of players that participate and that has direct implications for future participation for all teams just in it for fun.

The thing is, that group 2 is ok to play with class limits, whilst group 1 will suffer playing with no limits. For example my team (I guess both rosters) decided that we are not gonna play beast with no restrictions (or with a limit of 3), and I think we are not the only who taking that point.
I see no problem in organising a parallel tournament with the rules devs want to set to get their data. Teams that want to play this tournament will join, some guys are enjoying counter strike and they will meet the needs of the devs

 

[The_Great_White]

AVRC will make his own tournament without class limits, let's not ruin the BEAST tournament for the sake of a badge and let AVRC test the skirmish parameters, BEAST don't need to contribute. BEAST is the 'community's tournament' and not a tournament used for testing, keep it that way.

100 % agree, nothing to add!

 

[Aeronwen]

There are some really bizarre things said on here so lets be real shall we?

Teams wont play several different tournaments at once. So if AVRC did run his own tourney BEAST would stop for the duration. Basically for teams it would be the same choice, play without class limits or don't participate.

Hopefully no-one here really wants or expects the devs to spend their time running a tournament. If you do it properly it is a huge time investment and I for one would rather the small MP dev team was working on the game.

It doesn't matter what the name of the tournament is. What we need right now is a tournament that has already separated the teams into groups by skill and can run as the teams expect but without class restrictions.

We can very easily make the tournament shorter by simply dividing the teams into smaller groups. It is all about where you draw the line (as Mason said to Dixon) and that is fairly arbitrary.

 

[Forsee]

Why couldn't you play 2 tournaments at the same time? That's only 2 games per week, I guess you can spend 2-3 hours per week on these tournament games if you are taking a part in them.
Also I think not everyone who wants to play with no restrictions is gonna play BEAST, and that's alright.
Anyway, there's a poll that will decide if BEAST gonna be played with restrictions or not, and all these conversations are useless, anyway you won't go against votes. Just in case I want to mention that some teams won't participate in beast with no limits.