How Bannerlord could be

[Caps]

The problem is if they invest 1 gold into SP they get 2 out of it and if they invest the same one in MP they get 1.5 out of it. So i guess that kinda explains why MP is so ****. They got competitors with mordhau and for honor in that field aswell.

For ranked you would need 5o5 and not 10o10 and alot of the mechanics need to be reworked. If you wanna make an esports game u normally make it free2play, which would be possible. I believe it would promote SP aswell, at least enough to make it worth.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

The problem is if they invest 1 gold into SP they get 2 out of it and if they invest the same one in MP they get 1.5 out of it. So i guess that kinda explains why MP is so ****. They got competitors with mordhau and for honor in that field aswell.

For ranked you would need 5o5 and not 10o10 and alot of the mechanics need to be reworked. If you wanna make an esports game u normally make it free2play, which would be possible. I believe it would promote SP aswell, at least enough to make it worth.

Yeah that is objectively correct, it is definitely more profitable for them at least in immediate returns to invest in the SP.

I'm not so sure the justification for 5v5 instead of 10v10 you'd have to extrapolate on that a bit more.

Ideally mechanics should be reworked anyways.

That is partially why I think it is a great idea to invest more in the multiplayer side because it gives more visibility to the IP as well as could be a continual source of income from selling cosmetics, which is shown to be highly profitable and largely satisfying and welcome by most customers. This allows them more staff, for more support, for more promotions, for more attention, for more sales, for more staff....

It would allow them to have a continual cycle of support based on its own value which is desperately needed for multiplayer.

 

[jon01]

I like that BL currently shows what class a player has been playing as during each match on the scoreboard. I don't think they should get rid of that. It's like a medal. Getting a high score as infantry is much better to show off than as cavalry or archer. If anything, they should make it clearer. Maybe colour the infantry icon gold, and archer/cavalry as silver/bronze?

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

I like that BL currently shows what class a player has been playing as during each match on the scoreboard. I don't think they should get rid of that. It's like a medal. Getting a high score as infantry is much better to show off than as cavalry or archer. If anything, they should make it clearer. Maybe colour the infantry icon gold, and archer/cavalry as silver/bronze?

That could still be the case as the custom classes would fall under their respective tier in the combat triad and share the same base stats among that triad.

 

[Caps]

Yeah that is objectively correct, it is definitely more profitable for them at least in immediate returns to invest in the SP.

I'm not so sure the justification for 5v5 instead of 10v10 you'd have to extrapolate on that a bit more.

Ideally mechanics should be reworked anyways.

That is partially why I think it is a great idea to invest more in the multiplayer side because it gives more visibility to the IP as well as could be a continual source of income from selling cosmetics, which is shown to be highly profitable and largely satisfying and welcome by most customers. This allows them more staff, for more support, for more promotions, for more attention, for more sales, for more staff....

It would allow them to have a continual cycle of support based on its own value which is desperately needed for multiplayer.

There are several reasons why 5o5 is the best and why its picked by most games e.g. League, Cs:go.
1. You wont be able to find enough good players for a team of 10 people, so it significantly reduces the skill level of the match.
2. Viewers wont remember 10 names of their favorite team. 5 people seems to be a sweetspot for that.
3. Its harder to organise 10 people aswell. You will require lots of subs then.

personally i think for bannerlord it would be more fun if it was 7-10 people in skirmish.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

There are several reasons why 5o5 is the best and why its picked by most games e.g. League, Cs:go.
1. You wont be able to find enough good players for a team of 10 people, so it significantly reduces the skill level of the match.
2. Viewers wont remember 10 names of their favorite team. 5 people seems to be a sweetspot for that.
3. Its harder to organise 10 people aswell. You will require lots of subs then.

personally i think for bannerlord it would be more fun if it was 7-10 people in skirmish.

That is an interesting point, however League and CS:GO are entirely different genres, I'm not entirely sure if that is a fair comparison to be using as a facsimile foundation for how many players are in a match. 5 feels far too few; at least for battle (The only game mode worth its salt for competitive play) in regards to the feel of bannerlord. Any additional players in League would make teamfights far too hectic, confusing and difficult to balance due to the nature of character abilities. I don't know CS:GO well enough to understand why they need 5.

1. I don't really see why it would be hard to find enough good players for a team of 10, when I was competitive, clan matches in warband routinely ran teams of 6-10 and I would say all of the players on both sides were highly skilled. Of course that is entirely anecdotal and things possibly could have changed since my years in competitive but I would be surprised if they have.

2. That is an interesting point as well and I could agree with you on that to a point. I would counter that however in stating that casual audiences or amateurs typically recognize team names more than they do individual player names with exception to specific onesie twosie players that stand out to them. It's typically the hardcore fans that pay that close attention and it would surprise me if 1-5 extra players would really be a barrier to a fan. Anecdotally for me, I played League for years and can spout out dozens of different teams, but maybe only a dozen players.

3. That is a very good point and I think it would actually be the biggest challenge regarding it beyond your other points. That is why I'd like to see an in-game group/clan feature where you can manage your team or look to recruit potential talent through profiles or something.

10v10 is a stretch but I would like to see at least 6v6-8v8 for competitive battle mode as it is pretty standardized already and is enjoyable to spectate and/or engage in.

 

[Caps]

That is an interesting point, however League and CS:GO are entirely different genres, I'm not entirely sure if that is a fair comparison to be using as a facsimile foundation for how many players are in a match. 5 feels far too few; at least for battle (The only game mode worth its salt for competitive play) in regards to the feel of bannerlord. Any additional players in League would make teamfights far too hectic, confusing and difficult to balance due to the nature of character abilities. I don't know CS:GO well enough to understand why they need 5.

1. I don't really see why it would be hard to find enough good players for a team of 10, when I was competitive, clan matches in warband routinely ran teams of 6-10 and I would say all of the players on both sides were highly skilled. Of course that is entirely anecdotal and things possibly could have changed since my years in competitive but I would be surprised if they have.

2. That is an interesting point as well and I could agree with you on that to a point. I would counter that however in stating that casual audiences or amateurs typically recognize team names more than they do individual player names with exception to specific onesie twosie players that stand out to them. It's typically the hardcore fans that pay that close attention and it would surprise me if 1-5 extra players would really be a barrier to a fan. Anecdotally for me, I played League for years and can spout out dozens of different teams, but maybe only a dozen players.

3. That is a very good point and I think it would actually be the biggest challenge regarding it beyond your other points. That is why I'd like to see an in-game group/clan feature where you can manage your team or look to recruit potential talent through profiles or something.

10v10 is a stretch but I would like to see at least 6v6-8v8 for competitive battle mode as it is pretty standardized already and is enjoyable to spectate and/or engage in.

well in my experience 5o5 tournaments in nw were far more skillful than nationcups, 7o7 or 10o10
the teamsize for competitive esports was an argument brought by riot once
you would have way less teams in total aswell, while some might be stacked and others arent -> uneven matches

for casual in skirmish 10o10 might be fine

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

well in my experience 5o5 tournaments in nw were far more skillful than nationcups, 7o7 or 10o10
the teamsize for competitive esports was an argument brought by riot once
you would have way less teams in total aswell, while some might be stacked and others arent -> uneven matches

for casual in skirmish 10o10 might be fine

That is interesting, I think it definitely is worth more consideration and analysis; I would personally look towards the competitive community to gather more input before making any decision. Again like many things in the OP, I quickly threw things together in a way that resembled my preferred experience and I never experienced warband in smaller competitive settings so I do hold a bias, the smallest was 6v6 battle mode.

My thought on that specifically is not a firmly held position and would easily be entirely satisfied with 5v5 if that made the competitive community stronger as a whole. There is no reason, custom server competitive matches could not be organized with larger groups anyways, if clans did want to have a larger tournament not directly supported by the native ranked mode.

 

[Caps]

That is interesting, I think it definitely is worth more consideration and analysis; I would personally look towards the competitive community to gather more input before making any decision. Again like many things in the OP, I quickly threw things together in a way that resembled my preferred experience and I never experienced warband in smaller competitive settings so I do hold a bias, the smallest was 6v6 battle mode.

My thought on that specifically is not a firmly held position and would easily be entirely satisfied with 5v5 if that made the competitive community stronger as a whole. There is no reason, custom server competitive matches could not be organized with larger groups anyways, if clans did want to have a larger tournament not directly supported by the native ranked mode.

nw is differently played than native though dont think 5o5 would work...6v6 is already small for it. Well the decision for it has already been made anyways.

 

[Al'extérieur]

The problem is if they invest 1 gold into SP they get 2 out of it and if they invest the same one in MP they get 1.5 out of it. So i guess that kinda explains why MP is so ****. They got competitors with mordhau and for honor in that field aswell.

Pretty on point. My guess is that they probably think most casual players won't try MP if the SP mode is riddled with bugs & crashes, since in MP you also have to factor the connection of everyone else. I'd love if both modes could get equal love and fixes. The only time I tried Bannerlord MP I had a freaking BLAST.

I also agree with the banner creator option being similar to For Honor. I think I spent like 4-5 hours making them.

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

Pretty on point. My guess is that they probably think most casual players won't try MP if the SP mode is riddled with bugs & crashes, since in MP you also have to factor the connection of everyone else. I'd love if both modes could get equal love and fixes. The only time I tried Bannerlord MP I had a freaking BLAST.

I also agree with the banner creator option being similar to For Honor. I think I spent like 4-5 hours making them.

I'd love the banner creator like in FH. However the picture I posted is already developed/implemented in SP and could be a snap to implement into MP without reaching for the stars.

 

[Brandis.]

Great thread and ranked is an absolute necessity. Playing matchmaking except for Siege is a horrible experience right now. It's no wonder that people are asking for custom servers if this is what people's impression of matchmaking is.

It's incredibly depressing to try and play a match that actually has solid opponents. I've queued for almost 100 games in Skirmish and won nearly all of them. The only time that I managed to play against an actual opponent was when we set up two premades and even THEN we had to restart 2-3 times each queue because we wouldn't be placed against each other. Just silly.

On another note, the best way to determine if 5v5 / 6v6 / 7v7 / 8v8 / 10v10 would be best is to experiment with that in game. It's a beta and Skirmish has received very minimal design changes since beta launch.

 

[Al'extérieur]

I'd love the banner creator like in FH. However the picture I posted is already developed/implemented in SP and could be a snap to implement into MP without reaching for the stars.

Oh yes, for sure!
They could temporarily just enable us to use multiple patterns on the same banner so we could at least make something more "customized". The only way I've been able to do it yet on SP was with this website.
e.g:

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

Oh yes, for sure!
They could temporarily just enable us to use multiple patterns on the same banner so we could at least make something more "customized". The only way I've been able to do it yet on SP was with this website.
e.g:

That..... is a freaking amazing banner

 

[부부를 넘어서 가자]

5v5 is poo. 6v6 minimum.

 

[RCC_God]

5v5 would only work for groupfighting. wonder if thats gonna be a thing

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

Great thread and ranked is an absolute necessity. Playing matchmaking except for Siege is a horrible experience right now. It's no wonder that people are asking for custom servers if this is what people's impression of matchmaking is.

It's incredibly depressing to try and play a match that actually has solid opponents. I've queued for almost 100 games in Skirmish and won nearly all of them. The only time that I managed to play against an actual opponent was when we set up two premades and even THEN we had to restart 2-3 times each queue because we wouldn't be placed against each other. Just silly.

On another note, the best way to determine if 5v5 / 6v6 / 7v7 / 8v8 / 10v10 would be best is to experiment with that in game. It's a beta and Skirmish has received very minimal design changes since beta launch.

To top it off, the lack of persistence from round to round makes the game feel extremely superficial. No one bothers talking because it's unlikely they will see each other again and the absence of other contributing subsystems. That loneliness is extremely depressing and makes me feel like I may as well play single player. It's one of the top reasons that I've already abandoned Bannerlord MP even though I spent ~8k hours in warband; it all feels... empty. That's not even touching the problems with no ranked/forced classes/removal of battle,duel,deathmatch/misc. combat & balance issues

 

[Fietta]

5v5 is poo. 6v6 minimum.

Yes for Warband, who knows what the meta is for BL

 

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

Yes for Warband, who knows what the meta is for BL

I think a large part of that would be determined on map design/size for a battle mode that will never be released natively.

 

[hayvansever10]

I disagree about the whole rank thingy for custom games. I'd prefer custom games to not show rank and take as less space as possible.

Something like this,
I made my UI this way because the obnoxious avatars were annoying to me.

This is a nice change, a beautiful view. Great job!