I am repulsively disappointed in MP, Taleworlds.

[Jess_the_Hobozerk]

On the other hand, a lot of the negative reviews are due to crashes and bugs, there's proof of that as on release BL had around 89% positive reviews and dropped to 82% after a couple of days, now after quick crash and bug fixes, the reviews have stabilised at around 83%. Having 83% for an EA game in 2020 is almost unheard of - it's a big achievement to say the least and as the game develops, it'll probably only get higher.

My issue is, I've given it a positive review based on the entirety of EA, this includes singleplayer - multiplayer has many flaws like the combat, skirmish mode, lack of custom servers and many bugs, I dislike MP just as the next, but does it warrant a negative review? It's hard to say, if I was solely basing my review off MP, I'd for sure give a negative review, but the fact is, it's also based on SP and MP does have siege, which is a really fun gamemode. The SP is fantastic and that alone doesn't warrant a negative review since SP in my opinion the main attraction for Bannerlord. If a person who enjoys the SP aspect of Warband came up to me and asked if it's Good? I'll say yes, if a person who enjoys the multiplayer aspect of Warband came up to me, I'd say no. Overall though, there's more positives about the game (if you include SP) than negatives.

What appeals to me is the MP and I'm disappointing with the lack of communication and changes made, it's very displeasing to say the least - but reviews are global and just because MP is bad, doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad game. I've got thousands of hours in Warband MP and participated in many large tournaments, I'm trying to be realistic with my review instead of being blinded by the one section I love the most (multiplayer).

I'm not sure anyone is really hating the game as a whole. The reason for the constant attacking of taleworlds is due to their radio silence in the face of massively popular consensus regarding requested changes and in the worst cases; toting a greater than thou complex in response to legitimate criticisms of design choices.

If intentions were made transparent and they offered more official dialogue with the community's most dedicated and invested fans, things wouldn't be this bad.

 

[Noviix]

You talk about realism, yet your okay with naked men using two handers swinging like ballerinas?

Realism in terms of team damage and realism in terms of what people wanna wear are two different conversations, if you can't notice that I don't feel the need to argue about it.

 

[Caius_III]

On the other hand, a lot of the negative reviews are due to crashes and bugs, there's proof of that as on release BL had around 89% positive reviews and dropped to 82% after a couple of days, now after quick crash and bug fixes, the reviews have stabilised at around 83%. Having 83% for an EA game in 2020 is almost unheard of - it's a big achievement to say the least and as the game develops, it'll probably only get higher.

My issue is, I've given it a positive review based on the entirety of EA, this includes singleplayer - multiplayer has many flaws like the combat, skirmish mode, lack of custom servers and many bugs, I dislike MP just as the next, but does it warrant a negative review? It's hard to say, if I was solely basing my review off MP, I'd for sure give a negative review, but the fact is, it's also based on SP and MP does have siege, which is a really fun gamemode. The SP is fantastic and that alone doesn't warrant a negative review since SP in my opinion the main attraction for Bannerlord. If a person who enjoys the SP aspect of Warband came up to me and asked if it's Good? I'll say yes, if a person who enjoys the multiplayer aspect of Warband came up to me, I'd say no. Overall though, there's more positives about the game (if you include SP) than negatives.

What appeals to me is the MP and I'm disappointing with the lack of communication and changes made, it's very displeasing to say the least - but reviews are global and just because MP is bad, doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad game. I've got thousands of hours in Warband MP and participated in many large tournaments, I'm trying to be realistic with my review instead of being blinded by the one section I love the most (multiplayer).

I agree with Fietta too. I hope we'll have some communications made by the developpers soon though.

 

[Absurd]

Maybe this is really just Mount & Blade II : Bannerlord, and in a few years they will release Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Warband.
Multiplayer is an afterthought for TW, and at this point is for the SP audience- something to do for some laughs after a day of solo campaigning.

 

[adamski451]

Maybe this is really just Mount & Blade II : Bannerlord, and in a few years they will release Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Warband.
Multiplayer is an afterthought for TW, and at this point is for the SP audience- something to do for some laughs after a day of solo campaigning.

Amen. The MP was never that mind-blowing in Warband either and you can tell it wasn’t the main focus, it’s just a very nice extra that they didn’t even have to include.

 

[Fietta]

Maybe this is really just Mount & Blade II : Bannerlord, and in a few years they will release Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Warband.
Multiplayer is an afterthought for TW, and at this point is for the SP audience- something to do for some laughs after a day of solo campaigning.

MP is being developed on, even if it's at a slower rate but hopefully they can flesh out SP so then the development for MP can be speedy.

 

[Sundeki]

On the other hand, a lot of the negative reviews are due to crashes and bugs, there's proof of that as on release BL had around 89% positive reviews and dropped to 82% after a couple of days, now after quick crash and bug fixes, the reviews have stabilised at around 83%. Having 83% for an EA game in 2020 is almost unheard of - it's a big achievement to say the least.

If you look at the earliest reviews it was literally people with less than an hour of play time posting a single line "review" and giving it a like without actually having played it. The dominating factor behind the positive reviews isn't remotely critical. It's fair to say any great series that has a cult following, in which the game isn't a total disaster (multiplayer is, but singleplayer isn't, and the overwhelming majority of people only play singleplayer) will have a fan sperg out like this. The decline in positive reviews is highly indicative of something wrong other than bugs. Nobody I know personally who has played the game has had an outright crash(but I will admit this probably isn't indicative of the average experience). But Bethesda games got extremely positive reviews despite being absolutely bug-laden and crashy messes of meme-tier proportions. If a game series that previously had a 97% positive review score for what it is reasonable to say was a barebones indie game, and the next title that people are super hyped about and posting hype-goggle reviews, and in the first week can only get 83%: something is quite wrong with the core gameplay experience other than the crashing.

My issue is, I've given it a positive review based on the entirety of EA, this includes singleplayer - multiplayer has many flaws like the combat, skirmish mode, lack of custom servers and many bugs, I dislike MP just as the next, but does it warrant a negative review? It's hard to say, if I was solely basing my review off MP, I'd for sure give a negative review, but the fact is, it's also based on SP and multiplayer does have siege, which is a really fun gamemode. The SP is fantastic and that alone doesn't warrant a negative review since SP is in my opinion the main attraction for Bannerlord. If a person who enjoys the sS{ aspect of Warband came up to me and asked if it's Good? I'll say yes, if a person who enjoys the multiplayer aspect of Warband came up to me, I'd say no. Overall though, there's more positives about the game (if you include SP) than negatives.

What appeals to me is the MP and I'm disappointing with the lack of communication and changed made, it's very displeasing to say the least - but reviews are global and just because MP is bad, doesn't mean it's necessarily a bad game.

I guess this depends on what one expects, or what perspective they have on reviewing titles. e.g to me a 51% good, 49% bad game is a bad game. Not because it is mostly good, but because rating a game from 1-100, or any other rating system, is a relative process. You have to compare enjoyment levels to other games. Hypothetically if my average experience of games I play is 75% good and 25% bad, then a game that is 51% bad, and 49% good is, on that ranking system, a bad/not good game as a whole single game, all good and bad factored in. I can see why people who only play the singleplayer can give the game a good review( I almost did), as they both aren't playing multiplayer, and on the whole don't seem to have an understanding of the intricate balance, and even if they did, they haven't played the game enough to get to the point where the glaring flaws begin to take hold.

What my steam review will be can be summed up as "Multiplayer is bad, but singleplayer, despite it's issues, is a good foundation. And while lacking content and buggy and unbalanced, will probably be a good game 1-2 years down the line. This isn't a 'don't buy', this is a 'don't buy yet' ". Which despite being a on the whole negative review as of right now, is both fair and subject to change in the future. Assuming TaleWorlds actually listens, that is.

 

[:-)]

shootings cavs shields should stop their stab like in warband, rn u can couch archers at the right angle and even if theyre aware of u its 95% kill chance (maybe a bit lower vs. people with hands)

meanwhile inf can make themselves 1m50 and be impossible to footshot, some archer classes can take shields and up to 40 body armour, cavs can get +50 horse and body armour from rnd1 and get to play it twice if they save money for round 2, some weapons are ridiculously unfair (heavy menavlion, billhook), list of unbalanced features goes on............

the games full of gimmicks and has a rly low skill ceiling due to how infeffective bumpstabing is and how slow + clunky combat is. only high skill ceiling is archer which will mean the awesome 6v6 e-sport arena tournaments u're going for will be 6v6 medieval shootouts with maybe 1-2 cav thrown in the mix as charlini said

said not exactly engaging gameplay.

the engines trash to play on and we'll have to live with that, but the least u can do is listen to the community when they tell u to fix the broken class system

 

[Charlini]

Maybe this is really just Mount & Blade II : Bannerlord, and in a few years they will release Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Warband.
Multiplayer is an afterthought for TW, and at this point is for the SP audience- something to do for some laughs after a day of solo campaigning.

The fact that SP was their focus does not mean they didn't want MP bigger and supported unlike in Warband. This is one of the reasons I didn't give a negative review(nor positive one yet, as crashes and bugs prevented me from judging), I enjoy Bannerlord's SP and Casual MP gameplay but I can't say the same for competitive or any consistent experience 'playing to win' or improve in this game.

They voiced themselves over competitive interests several times, they hosted a LAN in Warband, and spoke about others to come in Bannerlord, this also got reminded later on. They developed matchmaking system and spoke about competitive intentions built around it. They adjusted forum media and competitive 'places' as well as a better replay system.

So yeah, you're not entirely right and we're trying to help and give our input because despite their combat depth system, mechanics and balance, the game is not anywhere close to holding its' ground for competitive if we're realistic.

Also will repeat this another time, noone wants Warband 2.0, We want an improvement from Warband, the complexity of Bannerlord wasn't an issue until we lost control from mechanics, take 6-7 hits to kill someone randomly, lose total balance of classes and sum many flaws over those like non-optimised perk system. We're not complaining for the shake of doing it, we want the game to get good and we just want to know what are their thoughts & intentions with combat&balance changes, since the pace to improve since June has not been fastest.

 

[CIIGES of the low lands]

maybe fietta can be the community manager, seeing as he's literally the only one communicating with us

 

[Absurd]

The fact that SP was their focus does not mean they didn't want MP bigger and supported unlike in Warband........

Thanks Charlini I hear you there, I too am just trying to parse out why the choices to make mp less fun and interesting than it could be / was. Actually have had a blast playing but always leave feeling bewildered and bitter, so holding off on a recommendation either way as well.

 

[flavberg]

Spoiler: Nonsense

Taleworlds, do you really think the newcomers won't think the combat is trash as well? Get real. We've been telling you this for months. Fresh sets of eyes won't save you.

I'm really hoping that's just a generic reply and it's not a "lol we don't care we're leaving combat as it is" thing.

 

[Gibby Jr]

MP is being developed on, even if it's at a slower rate but hopefully they can flesh out SP so then the development for MP can be speedy.

it will speed up once they release mod tools and let the community make the MP how they want it to be, since they aren't interested in listening or giving players what they want. Warband MP still had 500+ people on it at 8pm today, which looked to be 1/3rd-1/4th of what Bannerlord had at the same time in MP. For all the "hype" of a new game, people sure are going back to Warband's MP quite quickly...

 

[๖Kern]

I'm really hoping that's just a generic reply and it's not a "lol we don't care we're leaving combat as it is" thing.

That's how they see it... we have "much deeper combat mechanics" which do not work as of now.

 

[Silen]

Frankly I don't have the patience to sit through another 10 months of talking to a brick wall as in the alpha/beta. Would appreciate a developer response letting us know whether they intend to do anything at all or we should stop wasting our time. The feedback they need is all there, it has been for months.

 

[sircarl3]

Frankly I don't have the patience to sit through another 10 months of talking to a brick wall as in the alpha/beta. Would appreciate a developer response letting us know whether they intend to do anything at all or we should stop wasting our time. The feedback they need is all there, it has been for months.

TW will ask when they care I suppose. I am trying to ween myself off these forums, but keep coming back to see if they responded. Coming to the realization things won't change soon will help us all move on with our lives lol

 

[Tastesslikevictory]

I honestly just don’t see whats wrong with the combat, it’s fundamentally the same as warband ?‍

 

[RCC_God]

its not at all like I mean its not terrible, its bad not terrible, but nothing like warband. has more in common with mordhau than warband I Feel rn

 

[부부를 넘어서 가자]

its not at all like I mean its not terrible, its bad not terrible, but nothing like warband. has more in common with mordhau than warband I Feel rn

Ye agee with that to me the game doesn't feel like a mount and Blade at all (combatwise)

 

[Caius_III]

I honestly just don’t see whats wrong with the combat, it’s fundamentally the same as warband ?‍

You didn't play enough.