I expect more and more people are dropping skirmish as it's not much fun right now. Seems like siege waittimes have gone down consequently.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
I am repulsively disappointed in MP, Taleworlds.
- 主题发起人 Kylbee
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
I think that all we need at this point is just a confirmation that all of the crucial stuff will be looked into once there's time and resources and that you guys actually care about our opinion in regards to combat and we are not talking to a brick wall this whole time - which I believe we are not. We have patience, a large part of us waited 8 years for this game to release, we can wait months for updates, we are just worried that the updates won't address the issues we consider to be #1.
Some of the first (but certainly not first-first) threads for MP suggestions since the Beta forums closed and the game launched are as following,
• Embracing Clans and Expanding Semi-Competitive Potential
• Replace the class system with something that's actually fun
• MP groups should be able to have ∞ players in them if searching for non-competitive matches
• More Stats?
最后编辑:
This was taken at when events normally run, more events run on the weekend so this number could be higher depending when it is looked at.
Aside of my own opinion from the recent actions and priorities that TW has taken that I already mentioned in different threads(You'll know them if u actually did read around), I can safely say that the % from Warband mentioned is insignificant and oportunistic, and you should look at the activity(wish you could check even if you can't) during 2014-2015 or 2017, Native, Mods, events & TW Lan included, not the one a week later that Bannerlord came out.
Reality is that many new players are getting annoyed and your low multiplayer pool is drasticly decreasing, not because people who played beta, but because those who played beta and new players don't enjoy certain aspects of MP. New players quit skirmish quickly(you should understand now why), and veterans quickly get bored due those stomps or abuse of broken aspects of combat & balance and can't stand long gaming sessions.
Perhaps looking through rellevant and in-depth feedback that some players invested hours and hours to try and expose in the best way possible to proceed, specially when they did it with clips, arguments and straight explanation why some basic elements are wrong, and suggested solutions that should be looked into, instead of arguing over topics that have already been answered in the past by Taleworlds(Duel, Class system etc). We even @Callum in some of them and we never got an answer back, not sure of the reason.
Reality is that many new players are getting annoyed and your low multiplayer pool is drasticly decreasing, not because people who played beta, but because those who played beta and new players don't enjoy certain aspects of MP. New players quit skirmish quickly(you should understand now why), and veterans quickly get bored due those stomps or abuse of broken aspects of combat & balance and can't stand long gaming sessions.
Perhaps looking through rellevant and in-depth feedback that some players invested hours and hours to try and expose in the best way possible to proceed, specially when they did it with clips, arguments and straight explanation why some basic elements are wrong, and suggested solutions that should be looked into, instead of arguing over topics that have already been answered in the past by Taleworlds(Duel, Class system etc). We even @Callum in some of them and we never got an answer back, not sure of the reason.
最后编辑:
Like most people who replied in this thread I am a passionat fan of Taleworlds and the Mount & Blade series.
Still I have to agree with most players regarding the combat and other multiplayer related stuff.
For me it makes absolutely no sense that each faction has 7 unique classes and it really only makes sense to use 2-3 since the rest of them are completely underwhelming and make (competetivewise) no sense to pick.
Also another thing which I have a problem with is that every class can pick up any weapon/mount any horse and you perform as well. (for example peasent picking up a bow/mounting a horse and playing as well as a horse archer).
So @Callum do you guys rly think that working on a new gamemode will fix the current state the combat is in/inbalance of skirmish classes?
Still I have to agree with most players regarding the combat and other multiplayer related stuff.
For me it makes absolutely no sense that each faction has 7 unique classes and it really only makes sense to use 2-3 since the rest of them are completely underwhelming and make (competetivewise) no sense to pick.
Also another thing which I have a problem with is that every class can pick up any weapon/mount any horse and you perform as well. (for example peasent picking up a bow/mounting a horse and playing as well as a horse archer).
So @Callum do you guys rly think that working on a new gamemode will fix the current state the combat is in/inbalance of skirmish classes?
Player counts are expected to plummet like any other game. I'd guess anywhere between 85-95% of players who try MP will quit within the next month or two, before stabilizing for the long term audience. The stabilization count is key, and it's still much too early to start judging what it will be.
For example of a hyped game like BL, take a look at the general interest for Apex:
Obviously, the games are very different, but this graph should give a basic representation of what will happen in BL. Currently, BL is still at the peak and Google hasn't even finished tracking the height yet.
That said, starting off SP will full support, constant attention, constant patches, and full devition is going to HARD push the 2-2.5% ratio of SP:MP we saw in Warband. Maybe lower. If MP received the same support, attention to balance, and constant patches in-line with the best community feedback, MP would have more players and the ratio would be much different.
Like, what's the worst that could happen if a patch made control for attacks and blocks more responsive, spears were nerfed, and Captain received a basic balance patch. Would new players get bullied by veterans? Because that's already happening and will continue to happen and will always happen, unless you made combat governed by RNG.
Multiplayer is difficult for new players to enter for a variety of reasons. People have the following options:
Siege: Good, but has performance issues and a lack of face value "new experiences" for new players unless you start working out the details of siege engines or general flow of maps. Also a bit unbalanced.
Captain: Not true PvP, but seems reasonably popular and fun. Average game quality is hilariously low
TDM: Chaotic mess where you're spawnkilled from behind unless you play as cav. Not very appealing for newcomers
Skirmish: Hope you're ready to be rolled by stacks of experienced players every other game. Average game quality is either one-sided stomps or reasonable stack v stack.
(Note: A major caveat is that I haven't played siege very much because 40fps is too low for me to fight good players on, and just farming new players gets boring pretty quick. So maybe siege is a haven for new players.)
There's four times the interest for Bannerlord Multiplayer compared to the height of Warband Multiplayer, according to Google Trends. Obviously, this is incomplete, but should be within a reasonable error margin.
Yet from my experience on NA, it's mostly Beta and some Warband veterans running around while new players quit MP halfway through a round after getting trashed by stacks. It's hard to know the numbers.
While it's expected that a huge portion of these players will immediately quit MP, I can't help but feel that number is much higher than it needs to be.
For example of a hyped game like BL, take a look at the general interest for Apex:
Obviously, the games are very different, but this graph should give a basic representation of what will happen in BL. Currently, BL is still at the peak and Google hasn't even finished tracking the height yet.
That said, starting off SP will full support, constant attention, constant patches, and full devition is going to HARD push the 2-2.5% ratio of SP:MP we saw in Warband. Maybe lower. If MP received the same support, attention to balance, and constant patches in-line with the best community feedback, MP would have more players and the ratio would be much different.
Like, what's the worst that could happen if a patch made control for attacks and blocks more responsive, spears were nerfed, and Captain received a basic balance patch. Would new players get bullied by veterans? Because that's already happening and will continue to happen and will always happen, unless you made combat governed by RNG.
Multiplayer is difficult for new players to enter for a variety of reasons. People have the following options:
Siege: Good, but has performance issues and a lack of face value "new experiences" for new players unless you start working out the details of siege engines or general flow of maps. Also a bit unbalanced.
Captain: Not true PvP, but seems reasonably popular and fun. Average game quality is hilariously low
TDM: Chaotic mess where you're spawnkilled from behind unless you play as cav. Not very appealing for newcomers
Skirmish: Hope you're ready to be rolled by stacks of experienced players every other game. Average game quality is either one-sided stomps or reasonable stack v stack.
(Note: A major caveat is that I haven't played siege very much because 40fps is too low for me to fight good players on, and just farming new players gets boring pretty quick. So maybe siege is a haven for new players.)
There's four times the interest for Bannerlord Multiplayer compared to the height of Warband Multiplayer, according to Google Trends. Obviously, this is incomplete, but should be within a reasonable error margin.
Yet from my experience on NA, it's mostly Beta and some Warband veterans running around while new players quit MP halfway through a round after getting trashed by stacks. It's hard to know the numbers.
While it's expected that a huge portion of these players will immediately quit MP, I can't help but feel that number is much higher than it needs to be.
最后编辑:
RCC_God
Knight
?
Brandis I’m curious if you ever have trouble winning as attacker? I’ve seen that being an attacker I almost always lose in the first 5 minutes, with my track record as attacker being 1/9 (it’s not me I’m top scoring and it’s not my team it’s something about balance)Player counts are expected to plummet like any other game. I'd guess anywhere between 85-95% of players who try MP will quit within the next month or two, before stabilizing for the long term audience. The stabilization count is key, and it's still much too early to start judging what it will be.
For example of a hyped game like BL, take a look at the general interest for Apex:
Obviously, the games are very different, but this graph should give a basic representation of what will happen in BL. Currently, BL is still at the peak and Google hasn't even finished tracking the height yet.
That said, starting off SP will full support, constant attention, constant patches, and full devition is going to HARD push the 2-2.5% ratio of SP:MP we saw in Warband. Maybe lower. If MP received the same support, attention to balance, and constant patches in-line with the best community feedback, MP would have more players and the ratio would be much different.
Like, what's the worst that could happen if a patch made control for attacks and blocks more responsive. Would new players get bullied by veterans? Because that's already happening and will continue to happen and will always happen, unless you made combat governed by RNG.
Multiplayer is difficult for new players to enter for a variety of reasons. People have the following options:
Siege: Good, but has performance issues and a lack of face value "new experiences" for new players unless you start working out the details of siege engines or general flow of maps. Also a bit unbalanced.
Captain: Not true PvP, but seems reasonably popular and fun. Average game quality is hilariously low
TDM: Chaotic mess where you're spawnkilled from behind unless you play as cav. Not very appealing for newcomers
Skirmish: Hope you're ready to be rolled by stacks of experienced players every other game. Average game quality is either one-sided stomps or reasonable stack v stack.
(Note: A major caveat is that I haven't played siege very much because it's too laggy for me to fight good players well, and just farming new players gets boring pretty quick. So maybe siege is a haven for new players.)
There's four times the interest for Bannerlord Multiplayer compared to the height of Warband Multiplayer, according to Google Trends.
Yet from my experience on NA, it's mostly Beta and some Warband veterans running around while new players quit MP halfway through a round after getting trashed by stacks. It's hard to know the numbers.
While it's expected that a huge portion of these players will immediately quit MP, I can't help but feel that number is much higher than it needs to be.
That's what I mean by problems with siege balance. Defenders have a good advantage on most maps from what I've seen. I have seen a couple ninjas or times that attackers won but defenders usually win.
With 59 teammates individual performance is pretty insignificant unless you somehow manage to coordinate your team. I remember you from Warband and you're quite good at killing masses of noobs and staying alive and a threat, but I don't think I'd rate your individual performance as having a huge impact overall.
If you stacked with an RCC 6 party, then you're 20% of a team... so I could definitely see that having an impact. But I think winning as attacker would still be lower than 50% even for a stack. (Again I don't have that many games played so I guess between us it's possible that attackers have just been unlucky in our games.)
Maybe it is different in NA but Siege is mostly me getting defending team, consequently losing in 3 minutes, then queuing for another 10 minutes for a match. Only mode to get consistent games is Skirmish and the state of that game mode is laughable, as is pretty much the state of MP overall. At this point for all I care they could completely scrap MP and focus all their resources on SP.
Edit: What doesn't help is that the veterans (mostly Beta & Alpha players) are some of the most disgusting people I've met in my life (and I played a ton of Dota). Invites seem to have gone out to a lot of Warband MP veterans and my experience so far isn't painting that community in any good light. Getting abuse for being new thanks to an utter lack of foresight on TW's part about how MP will go down in early access is frustrating to say the least.
Gotta agree on that last paragraph. Surprised me negatively to see a big amount of warband veterans typing 'ez' or similar **** to new players after going archer or cavalry. We could beat new players with the cheapest units and not taking it serious too, but no need to act on that disrespectful way, new players have enough with the awful lack of ranked system/matchmaking by Win rate.
Thankfully that behaviour doesn't apply to all of us
Toxicity exist in every multi-player game where you can win or lose. It'd be delusional to believe otherwise or that it began in Bannerlord.
I've come upon unmarked/EA players calling me gay when I killed them 1v3 in warm up, but no negative remarks from Alpha/Beta players yet.
Most of the time it's not breaking any laws, that'd be personal insults or threatening behavior. There's also a mute function in-game.
Then what can be done against players behaving in a disrespectful manner without impacting gameplay?
- CS:GO recently gave their players the option to entirely opt-out of seeing enemy chat.
Why doesn't TaleWorlds have any of those numbers themselves? It is absolute nonsense to compare Warband multiplayer numbers from after Bannerlord release, ten years after the game was released, with the multiplayer numbers of Bannerlord right now. This nonchalant attitude towards anything multiplayer related is really what tilts me. You literally give of the impression as if you couldn't care less. You most likely couldn't care less.
Why is there appearently such a bad culture at TaleWorlds when it comes to criticism? Players that have put in thousands of hours into the predecessor, beta and giving feedback are met with either silence, requests for more patience or halfassed replies such as this one. I don't understand why.
Exactly, it's not about toxicity in itself, that's par for the course of online communities. But alpha/beta players telling newbies to kill themselves just because they're new is pretty shameful. There are some vets that are helpful and while they still mop the floor with you, give you tips on how to get better.
I have been a part of different communities like Overwatch, CS:GO, Dota... and so far, the only game comparable to the toxic levels in this community is Dota, which is still a few levels higher above any other game in toxicity. But that has been my experience, no doubt others will have different experiences. There have been times when I lost my nerves with new players too and it is shameful, but I never approached anyone with a toxic attitude from the get-go.
Either way, it's a bit off-topic, couldn't agree more with what Scar wrote.
类似的主题
