Ideal amount of players in competitive skirmish/battle

[Einarcf]

I don't know the future of the game. Whether or not the "single life game mode", aka battle, will come. And in that case, if it will replace skirmish as the favored game mode for competitive. Thus, I placed both battle and skirmish in the title of the thread, just to be sure.

Changing the size would have a number of consequences.
1. The current maps might be either too small or too big.
2. You could have shorter/longer waiting time for a game to start.
3. The potential for stacking grows even stronger. You could have 12 clan members fighting against 12 new people.
4. Clans would need more/less players to field a team for tournaments.
5. There might be more room for specialization within a larger team and vice versa.
6. With more people, coordinated pushes could have increased value. Instead of 6 players catching 2 lone inf alone, it would be 12 versus 2.
7. With more people, the impact of a singular player significantly worse/better than the mean in that game would lessen.

Any thoughts? Would the primary game mode being skirmish or battle affect your vote?

 

[Younes]

"12v12 or more"

 

[Champion Relexan Forzen]

Skirmish 6v6, Battle(single life) 8v8

 

[OurGloriousLeader]

8v8 is gud. There are still some flaws with groupfights though that higher numbers will highlight.

 

[Yukmouth++]

Any Number. Should be decided by the server hoster

 

[jon01]

There should be a large Battle server, while Matchmaking can remain 6v6 or 8v8.

 

[Forsee]

1v1!
For clan matches, I think 1 life 8v8 is better but it will never be implemented cause you can't balance it with the class system.
For ranked pubs, 6v6 skirmishes are good, cause you are always fighting, have no downtime, shouldn't wait for the end of the round if you die and so on.
I'm also waiting for 2v2 or inf only 3v3 ranked game mode even though I am not an infantry player, this is just great for practicing.
I think ranked mm should work around average waiting time, I think something like 120-150 sec is fine. If MM won't find good and balanced game for 2-3 minutes, let it start even with mmr spread, but with 12 players found a game MM should make the most balanced teams possible.
I think players should only play mm solo, cause right now you just can't compare 2 solo players and 2 players playing together with discord fairly. Sometimes 2 teamed up players can destroy 6 solo nerds, and sometimes 1 archer can piy piy the whole stacked team.
I think there should be in-game voice chat for ranked games.
I got a little bit out of topic

 

[ParzivaI]

I don't know the future of the game. Whether or not the "single life game mode", aka battle, will come. And in that case, if it will replace skirmish as the favored game mode for competitive. Thus, I placed both battle and skirmish in the title of the thread, just to be sure.

Changing the size would have a number of consequences.
1. The current maps might be either too small or too big.
2. You could have shorter/longer waiting time for a game to start.
3. The potential for stacking grows even stronger. You could have 12 clan members fighting against 12 new people.
4. Clans would need more/less players to field a team for tournaments.
5. There might be more room for specialization within a larger team and vice versa.
6. With more people, coordinated pushes could have increased value. Instead of 6 players catching 2 lone inf alone, it would be 12 versus 2.
7. With more people, the impact of a singular player significantly worse/better than the mean in that game would lessen.

Any thoughts? Would the primary game mode being skirmish or battle affect your vote?

" if it will replace skirmish as the favored game mode for competitive" The only reason skirmish is favored right now is because Siege mod is dead and captain is unbalanced and broken
To be honest i dislike Skirmish looks like a cheat CSGO ripoff, nothing against people that like it but to me M&B series is all about the large scale battles and sieges.

Ideal amount of players in skirmish/battle 12v12.... I don't accept anything lower than 100v100​

 

[Forsee]

The more players are in game, the less impact each player has. If you play 20v20 and your team sucks, there is nothing you can do even if you are the best player in bannerlord. The less players are in game, the more impact each player has and the more intense the game is.
Skirmish is popular definitely not because of other gamemodes being bad atm, but because the whole competitive is based on skirmishes and all these competitive players are not playing other game modes cause it is just a time waste. Avg skill level on tdm is lul and this game mode is only good if there's no players on skirmish at the moment.

 

[Einarcf]

"12v12 or more"

I think it is interesting how many wanted 12v12 or more. Should have made higher options avaible, like "10-20", "20-40", "40-80", "80-160". I just think organizing such events take so much time.

There is also the thing about more people spending time idle as dead.

 

[WMorton]

Firstly why would we cap Battle anywhere near 12vs12, and Secondly why would it affect Skirmish as a gamemode. Look the fact is that tournaments and the sort will absolutely continue to use Skirmish as is. However, there is immense potential with a battle gamemode for Clans when it comes to large scale ranked or competitive events depending on size of said clans. IK Warband hoes will **** on me for what im about to say, however back in NW us cool kid regiments would have regiment vs regiment events called 1v1's which ive seen go up to about 40vs40 person lines, so I don't see any reason to truly cap Battle gamemode at anything less than 200.

 

[Younes]

however back in NW us cool kid regiments would have regiment vs regiment events called 1v1's which ive seen go up to about 40vs40 person lines, so I don't see any reason to truly cap Battle gamemode at anything less than 200.

"Back in the NW us cool kid regiments" is literally Napoleonic wars today.

Gatekeeping omegalul?

 

[WMorton]

"Back in the NW us cool kid regiments" is literally Napoleonic wars today.

Gatekeeping omegalul?

Point is we need the large server capacity and Battlemode

 

[Brandis.]

I like how people don't read the title of the poll, which clearly says "competitive." No one thinks that large occupancy battle servers shouldn't exist. What a pointless strawman.

I think 6v6 works well, but 8v8 should be tested, because it worked well in Warband. Whichever works better should be used for the official ranked.

 

[Pacemaker]

8v8 sounds fun, but we'd need dedicated maps for those. Considering the amount of times groupfights end in tight corridors where you can't even keep your camera from getting stuck in a wall, I think these maps are by design not good for 8v8.

 

[KSHMR]

8v8 sounds fun, but we'd need dedicated maps for those. Considering the amount of times groupfights end in tight corridors where you can't even keep your camera from getting stuck in a wall, I think these maps are by design not good for 8v8.

By the time TW fix the cameras views, these will all be viable maps. Well we don't know when this will be though.

 

[Greedalicious]

Competitive formats with too many players instantly makes the game less competitive and the level of skill and competition decreases.
It also makes it a logistics nightmare to form teams, create a proper roster and any form of prize pools and eventual LAN events are basically out the window.
Individual players have little way of showing themself off, as theyre basically just 1 of many, and considering the lack of customization in Bannerlord, its already hard enough to stand out.
Leading a team with a 14+ player roster, which would absolutely be neccesary because adding more people means less consistant availability as a group, is absolutely hell. Cavalry would 1000% dominate every match (which is already happening now, imagine how well they'd do with more chaos and less focus on them) and the life of infantry would be even worse.
For people watching, and lets face it without people watching, the game will never make it as a competitive game, with too many players theres way too much chaos to keep track of the gameplay, so it just becomes a blurry mess.

From a player perspective, if I want large battles, I'll go to siege. If people want the game to atleast have a chance in hell to make it as a competitive game, making it more than 6v6 is suicide. Hell I still prefer 5v5.

 

[Forsee]

Competitive formats with too many players instantly makes the game less competitive and the level of skill and competition decreases.

Yes.
Also there's no way to create balanced 1 life game modes with the current class system. Why'd you ever pick something except heavy cav?
8v8 and more skirmishes are gonna be chaotic as hell cause you'd have to make 1899329 frags to finish the round and you'd always be spawning somewhere near the fight, there would always be someone behind you cause you can't keep in mind every enemy's position. IGL's couldn't be able to handle it and it will be more like tdm than like skirmish.

I think less than 6v6 keeps no room for adjusting and the maps are too big for that, 6v6 feels fine for me.

Spoiler: Best format

0v0 is the best make love not war

 

[Greedalicious]

5v5 in the ancient times meant instead of getting everything you wanted, you had to make a decision, it spiced up the gameplay abit since you often couldnt set up a crossfire, because you needed atleast 2-3 infantry or 1-2 cavalry. Also logistically way way way way way way way way easier. 6v6 is fine but even if this game was flawless and had a huge following for competitive, it would struggle alot more.

 

[Firunien]

I think 8v8 would be best gameplay and fun wise, Bannerlord doesnt have to be like every other esports format, if you look at sprts you see player numbers fitting for the game. And my point is in a melee oriented game some more is better. Of course the obvious downside is organisation of players and that alone might make it unfavourable, well.. Warband survived with it so i´d give it a shot