BEAST - Bannerlord Early Access Skirmish Tournament

[IceNoVa]

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.

That may be the case for some, but probably not all teams participating.

An alternative would be an intermezzo event that is not planned to last 2 months, has fixed fixtures and deadlines and teams can play matches up until then. Sort of like the winter break.
The "pain" it would be to play without restrctions would be less time-consuming, whereas data is pretty much equivalent. While that would make teams play more than 1 match per week on average, it'd be more flexible and less of a long term commitment.

It could rely on BEAST#4 rosters, but people would play for badges instead of promotions and the whole thing might be done in a month. Best case, we get a patch that makes the game more pleasurable for everyone and BEAST#4 can get going as the community intends to.
Call the intermezzo run BEAST#3.5 with a twist. Purely hypothetical of course.

 

[Runcop]

I agree with dextrus that right now alot of the games if u are not playing sturgia is based around 2/2/2 and as a inf their is nothing more fustrating as competieve games turns into a waiting contest, i agree with some of the limits dextrus has suggested. But i do see the other side of the devs wanting to use beast as a development tool but i will again bring up a point that they should host their own tourneyment if they want that.

 

[Pacemaker]

I'm sorry, but this is ridiculous. I don't care how OP cavarly is or how weak infantry is in the current patch. These kinds of restrictions would take any sort of strategy or dynamic out of the game and turn it into a competition over who has the best infantry lineup, the best individual cav, archer etc. If you are so frustrated with the game that you'd be open to reduce the gameplay to this, you should either stick to duel mode or wait for 2 vs. 2 battles.

 

[KSHMR]

I say we enforce a strict policy of mininum 6 Infantry per team. Horses and bows should have no place in this game.

 

[Jufasto]

These kinds of restrictions would take any sort of strategy or dynamic out of the game and turn it into a competition over who has the best infantry lineup, the best individual cav, archer etc

Completely true, even i personally don't like playing 2/2/2 or playing against 2/2/2, harsher limits will just destroy the strategies and make this game ooga booga rush each other at every single map game. Also, If we take example of Grand Final match, on Xauna sets we saw how useless is 2/2/2 against top teams. So the current system is very fair. Every week we will get one close one open map so this way everyone will be happy. In open map you can play 2/2/2 in close map you can't (atleast against similar level clans)

 

[DeathBG]

I think we should be patient and give the developers some time to nerf Cav and make infantry more desirable.At this point if BEAST had no class limits only 1 inf is needed to push enemy archers and everyone else can play archers and cav.Or basically inf players will become irrelevant and the teams that have the most diversity will be victorious.

 

[TheBard]

I think we should be patient and give the developers some time to nerf Cav and make infantry more desirable.At this point if BEAST had no class limits only 1 inf is needed to push enemy archers and everyone else can play archers and cav.Or basically inf players will become irrelevant and the teams that have the most diversity will be victorious.

Or the biggest roster to cover all positions accordingly.