MP Multiplayer Class System

Users who are viewing this thread

Klausolus

Sergeant Knight
I believe that one of the best selling points of the M&B series lies in the freedom it gives the player. In the singleplayer campaign you create your own character, choose a custom background, then decide where to start your adventure, build your character around the playstyle that best suits you and choose what faction you want to fight for, if any. The multiplayer options are of course much more limited but still offer a wide variety of weapons and armors available for each faction. And while Taleworlds seems to be adding more customization options to the singleplayer, which is great, they also seem to be limiting the options available for us in the multiplayer.

Before continuing I should make clear that I don't have access to the closed beta as of right now, so I might be missing some details here that others may choose to further explain or discuss. On another note, from what I've seen and heard of people that has played the beta, most of them don't really seem to hate the new system, but preferred the one in Warband.

In the old system, every faction had 3 different classes (infantry, ranged and cavalry), each with a wide range of weapons and armor at their disposal. With the new system, the factions have 7 different classes, each of them having a perk to choose from a total of three, these perks improve a different aspect of the selected unit (its weapons, armor, ammunition, etc.), this allows for certain degree of customization, but it pales in comparison with the old one.

I honestly think the new system is flawed, it seems to have been created to fit a mold, that of the new modes of skirmish and captain battle. And while it seems it can work in those modes, it feels completely off in other modes like team deathmatch (only other mode currently in the beta):

To start of, the gold system they've decided to go with, isn't even implemented in all the modes, you can join a team deathmatch server and spawn as a vlandian knight (most expensive class in skirmish) right away. This completely kills the sense of progression Warband had within a match, where you got better equipment as the match went on, depending on how well you were performing. This wouldn't be a problem if all the classes were equally strong and perfectly balanced, which is not the case in the current beta, and that's why they have different costs in the skirmish mode, because the potential to impact the game is higher on a vlandian knight than on a peasant levy armed with a sickle.

In modes where the gold system isn't used, some classes are simply outperformed by others within the same category, and I'd argue that even in the skirmish mode it is better to have two lives of a decent unit than three of the weakest one.

I guess the main point I want to make is that the old system allows for more versatility on the players' side, and also adapts much better to the different game modes. In my opinion the logical step to take was to improve the previous system instead of making a completely new one that only really fits a couple game modes. I'd love them to go back to something closer to what we had in previous games, but I'm not too optimistic about that happening, so I hope they at least balance how this whole new system works in the different game modes.

So what do you think? Please answer the poll above and post your thoughts.

Klausolus said:
My suggestion would be to keep the new class system in those two modes, but incorporate an improved version of the classic system for all the other modes, as it clearly suits them better. And also add classic battle as a skirmish alternative in matchmaking and competitive play.

In my opinion, this, along with the reintroduction of the location based armor system, would be the best outcome possible for Bannerlord multiplayer.

EDIT: With those two modes I mean the skirmish and captain battle modes introduced in Bannerlord.
 
I still do not understand where its coming from that the old warband gold system is unbalanced as hell.

> Play siege
> Make kills
> Make more gold
> Decide to spare enough gold to get the best armor
> Die with it after doing maybe 2-3 kills
> Back to 0

The old warband system is way more rewarding for actually doing things. I agree that some tweaks have to be done when it comes to how you get the gold. Gold on hit or by doing an objective related to the gamemode (Siege where you capture the flag).

But this new system is really not rewarding

And don't get me started on customization. For the sake of balance it might work but it gets absolutely boring after a few games of playing the same classes with some minor "perks" that change only one slot
 
I agree that the class system in Warband is preferable over that in the beta. I will quote petmonster_tw, one of the developers, on why the system is the way it is for argument's sake.

petmonster_tw said:
It was one of the hot topics we had while designing mp. Our old and most loyal players love the old system and just want a streamlined & updated version of that system and I totally respect and understand that. But in the end we cannot possibly return to that and I hope you will understand the why of it and start to love the new system in time.

Main reasons are,

In MP theres no location based armor anymore. Just One armor value for all body parts now. Headshots deal more damage thats true but if a class says it has 36 armor all body parts have 36 armor.
Main reason for it was to make the game feel much less random. In the previous models when you hit an opponent you were dealing 5-70 damage and it was hard to say why.
Hand hit, hand has heavy armor, you hit with not the optimum hit position of the sword etc. The initial feedbacks were heavily we need more consistent damage.

TBH old system came out to be "offputting" for a large portion of new players too. In the tests we saw that it was too much information, too little time. And the knowledge of picking the right equipment for the right occasion comes with time too. That new players at a new level of disadvantage.

Class based system have many positive sides we couldnt ignore.

* Classes have roles to fullfill. Eg. Heavy archer is not an archer with just heavier armor. Its melee/ranged as opposed to pure ranged. If you want to play pure ranged and shoot shoot through the match you should pick light archer. If you want to play like a commando, shoot when you need, and engage opponents in melee willingly then its heavy archers. Another example for cavs. If you want hit and run and stabbing opponents while they are engaged in a fight then light cav is good. If you want to charge in, and stay there in the melee, heavy cav.

* Classes are recognizable. When you see an Imperial Cataphract you will recognize what it is, and what to expect from it.
1- Reach is longer than yours. Has one of the longest spears in the game.
2- It cannot couch lance
3- It moves like a flying brick. Not the slowest, but least maneuverable of horses
4- That said, horse is armored so heavily that you may forget about shooting the horse down. If you are dedicated you can of course but its not just the best idea.
5- Depending on the build, it could be a horse archer too. So if you are a horse archer you may want to stay out of its range.
6- It has a heavy mace. Against heavy inf they can charge in, bump and smash heads even if you are heavy armored they can still deal decent damage.
7- The player has spent a lot of "rings" to get that cataphract, and if you kill it it would be a devastating blow to the enemy team.
8- Usually it lacks a shield.
9- Every character has a unique name, and when someone says something about knights we all know they are talking about Vlandian Heavy Cav. Which has the best armor in the game, one of the best horse, couch lance one hit almost anyother character in the game etc.

* Class based system is easier to balance. You can compare similar classes with each other, and match 2 different classes to see how they fare generally. Also analytic data makes much more sense when you have classes. Also about unused under-powered perks we will update them when we have enough analytical data. Eg. Legionaries ALMOST ALWAYS pick heavy armor.

* Class based system enabled us to come up with a strange asymmetrical balance. Every culture has 7 classes. But there are 9 different classes out there. (Light Inf, Heavy Inf, Shock Troop, Skirmisher, Light Ranged, Heavy Ranged, Light Cav, Heavy Cav, Ranged Cav) So every culture lacks in one completely (and cannot fill that in any way. Eg Vlandians doesn't have ranged cav and they have no way to have horse archers. Their arbelists can ride one horse but cannot reload while mounted.) and one role they can only fill it by selecting another class and picking an appropriate perk. E.g. Khuzait doesn't have skirmishers, but its heavy inf has a large shield like skirmishers, and moves fast enough so heavy inf can pick extra javelins to fill that role if necessary.

Also each culture has 2 better classes, 1 weaker class. By better I mean more bang for your bucks. Compared to its cost the unit has slightly better setup compared to its peers. Weaker means slightly more expensive than it should be. I won't be revealing which units for each culture but some of you already discovered them. Heard someone saying "Aserai has better light troops as Vlandians have better heavy troops I like it." It was exactly what we wanted to achieve.

This offers each culture has its own unique strength and weaknesses and so, different play styles.

Finally, I would like to say, I wouldn't want to shake the boat so much as to alienate old and most loyal fans. But I really hope in time you guys understand why we had to change these and maybe even appreciate the new system for its merits. In the initial design there was one slot for "skill perk" one slot for "equipment perk" but we crossed over so many of the skill perks that we decided to remove them entirely at the moment. But we are of course not limited to 3 choices per class, We like to introduce more in time. That is why feedback we get from you guys is invaluable. Even if I or any other dev personally disagrees with or doesn't favor an idea or a feedback, you can be sure that we will consider that comment or idea on the design board.

See you guys on the battlefield, Cheers.
 
I can live with it but I much preferred being able to customise equipment, armour, and aesthetics on the fly. Overall the current system feels a bit limiting. Hopefully it will improve with more perks.
 
Younes123 said:
I still do not understand where its coming from that the old warband gold system is unbalanced as hell.

> Play siege
> Make kills
> Make more gold
> Decide to spare enough gold to get the best armor
> Die with it after doing maybe 2-3 kills
> Back to 0

The old warband system is way more rewarding for actually doing things. I agree that some tweaks have to be done when it comes to how you get the gold. Gold on hit or by doing an objective related to the gamemode (Siege where you capture the flag).

But this new system is really not rewarding

And don't get me started on customization. For the sake of balance it might work but it gets absolutely boring after a few games of playing the same classes with some minor "perks" that change only one slot

Completely agreed.

Maroon said:
I agree that the class system in Warband is preferable over that in the beta. I will quote petmonster_tw, one of the developers, on why the system is the way it is for argument's sake.

Thank you so much for this!

petmonster_tw said:
It was one of the hot topics we had while designing mp. Our old and most loyal players love the old system and just want a streamlined & updated version of that system and I totally respect and understand that. But in the end we cannot possibly return to that and I hope you will understand the why of it and start to love the new system in time.

Main reasons are,

In MP theres no location based armor anymore. Just One armor value for all body parts now. Headshots deal more damage thats true but if a class says it has 36 armor all body parts have 36 armor.
Main reason for it was to make the game feel much less random. In the previous models when you hit an opponent you were dealing 5-70 damage and it was hard to say why.
Hand hit, hand has heavy armor, you hit with not the optimum hit position of the sword etc. The initial feedbacks were heavily we need more consistent damage.


TBH old system came out to be "offputting" for a large portion of new players too. In the tests we saw that it was too much information, too little time. And the knowledge of picking the right equipment for the right occasion comes with time too. That new players at a new level of disadvantage.

Class based system have many positive sides we couldnt ignore.

* Classes have roles to fullfill. Eg. Heavy archer is not an archer with just heavier armor. Its melee/ranged as opposed to pure ranged. If you want to play pure ranged and shoot shoot through the match you should pick light archer. If you want to play like a commando, shoot when you need, and engage opponents in melee willingly then its heavy archers. Another example for cavs. If you want hit and run and stabbing opponents while they are engaged in a fight then light cav is good. If you want to charge in, and stay there in the melee, heavy cav.

* Classes are recognizable. When you see an Imperial Cataphract you will recognize what it is, and what to expect from it.
1- Reach is longer than yours. Has one of the longest spears in the game.
2- It cannot couch lance
3- It moves like a flying brick. Not the slowest, but least maneuverable of horses
4- That said, horse is armored so heavily that you may forget about shooting the horse down. If you are dedicated you can of course but its not just the best idea.
5- Depending on the build, it could be a horse archer too. So if you are a horse archer you may want to stay out of its range.
6- It has a heavy mace. Against heavy inf they can charge in, bump and smash heads even if you are heavy armored they can still deal decent damage.
7- The player has spent a lot of "rings" to get that cataphract, and if you kill it it would be a devastating blow to the enemy team.
8- Usually it lacks a shield.
9- Every character has a unique name, and when someone says something about knights we all know they are talking about Vlandian Heavy Cav. Which has the best armor in the game, one of the best horse, couch lance one hit almost anyother character in the game etc.


* Class based system is easier to balance. You can compare similar classes with each other, and match 2 different classes to see how they fare generally. Also analytic data makes much more sense when you have classes. Also about unused under-powered perks we will update them when we have enough analytical data. Eg. Legionaries ALMOST ALWAYS pick heavy armor.

* Class based system enabled us to come up with a strange asymmetrical balance. Every culture has 7 classes. But there are 9 different classes out there. (Light Inf, Heavy Inf, Shock Troop, Skirmisher, Light Ranged, Heavy Ranged, Light Cav, Heavy Cav, Ranged Cav) So every culture lacks in one completely (and cannot fill that in any way. Eg Vlandians doesn't have ranged cav and they have no way to have horse archers. Their arbelists can ride one horse but cannot reload while mounted.) and one role they can only fill it by selecting another class and picking an appropriate perk. E.g. Khuzait doesn't have skirmishers, but its heavy inf has a large shield like skirmishers, and moves fast enough so heavy inf can pick extra javelins to fill that role if necessary.

Also each culture has 2 better classes, 1 weaker class. By better I mean more bang for your bucks. Compared to its cost the unit has slightly better setup compared to its peers. Weaker means slightly more expensive than it should be. I won't be revealing which units for each culture but some of you already discovered them. Heard someone saying "Aserai has better light troops as Vlandians have better heavy troops I like it." It was exactly what we wanted to achieve.

This offers each culture has its own unique strength and weaknesses and so, different play styles.


Finally, I would like to say, I wouldn't want to shake the boat so much as to alienate old and most loyal fans. But I really hope in time you guys understand why we had to change these and maybe even appreciate the new system for its merits. In the initial design there was one slot for "skill perk" one slot for "equipment perk" but we crossed over so many of the skill perks that we decided to remove them entirely at the moment. But we are of course not limited to 3 choices per class, We like to introduce more in time. That is why feedback we get from you guys is invaluable. Even if I or any other dev personally disagrees with or doesn't favor an idea or a feedback, you can be sure that we will consider that comment or idea on the design board.

See you guys on the battlefield, Cheers.

A: I wasn’t aware of this, and to be honest, from what I’ve seen in beta gameplay videos, the damage seems much more randomized in Bannerlord. Plus in Warband it could be used strategically, if you saw someone with a heavy chest piece and helmet, but with the default boots, you could choose to attack his poorly protected feet.

B: Learning how to equip yourself was just part of the learning experience, it seems like you're dumbing down a game in order to attract and mantain a more casual population, when the very same foundation of its multiplayer, the combat system, has one of the steepest learning curves out there. Just like the combat, learning how to equip yourself properly, the basic stuff, was easy to understand, but it required experience in order to be able to adapt to any possible scenario.

C: With the old system if you wanted to play from afar as pure ranged, you chose a powerful bow and a cheap melee weapon, if you wanted to play commando you could buy a less powerful bow and a better melee weapon and armor.
Same with cavalry, hit and run playstyle requires buying a faster, weaker horse; charge and melee focused style requires heavier protection for rider and horse.

D: Some of the characteristics mentioned can be easily recognized in-game, the others can be learnt through experience, which would already be required in order to know the information within those points.

E: Sure it can be easier to balance, doesn’t mean it’s better for the overall game, though.

F: In Warband you could do basically the same, but without it being labelled that way, and having more options to choose from (IE: Sarranid footman with light armor, javelins, a cheap shield and a sword would act as a skirmisher). Each faction had its weaknesses and strengths in terms of equipment, and the different unit types had different stats from their equivalent in other factions.

I’ve spent a good amount of time playing Warband, and it’s been and still is my favourite game since I bought it in 2013, I’ve also been hyped and waiting for Bannerlord ever since I knew of its existence. I want it to be my next favorite game, and that’s why I am criticising the aspects that I believe can be improved. I don’t really like the new system and prefer the old one, it’s my personal opinion and it might not be shared by everyone, but honestly, if the main reason this change has been made is because it’s easier to balance ( basically a shortcut) I have to say that there’s more than enough time to take the long route and do the proper testing and balance before the game is fully released.
 
I pretty much agree with what Klausolus said above,

Why is taleworlds constantly trying to appease a supposed more casual playerbase? Has it not been the loyal playerbase that have been dedicated to make mods and play to keep warband alive and attract actual players?

The whole having same type of armor over the whole body is ridiculous. I honestly feel that bannerlord damage is completely wrong and i feel that the game is more random then warband ever was.
You see a guy running towards you, you see he has a weak looking helmet what do you do? You aim for the weakest spot he has on his body. I can not understand why taleworlds has decided to downgrade their system in a way rather then to improve upon it.

The last thing you want is your game losing your most loyal playerbase. Yes a class system is easier to balance but it is boring as hell and i can not believe anyone that played warband for plenty of time and has played multiplayer would choose to be restricted in this way.



To put it easier,

Taleworlds took several years to fix their workshop in warband even after the countless demands of it by the playerbase. Don't come telling me now that they suddenly care about their playerbase and how they want to make it easier for them and to attract more players while it was the modders who made the mods and the loyal playerbase who kept running events on modules like Napoleonic wars or persistent world but won't do jack **** to fix the workshop
 
I think the perk system is necessary for competitive play, but also does little to improve balance in non-competitive modes without point limitations like TDM or siege. The best class choice in non-competitive modes will always be the most armed & armored classes. Picking anything less than the best just hinders your chance of survival without any bonuses.

I'm curious what ideas and solutions Taleworlds has thought about for making modes without point limits full of balance and variety.
 
BayBear said:
I think the perk system is necessary for competitive play, but also does little to improve balance in non-competitive modes like TDM or siege. The best class choice in non-competitive modes will always be the most armed & armored classes. Picking anything less than the best just hinders your chance of survival.

I'm curious what ideas and solutions Taleworlds has thought about for making non-competitive modes full of balance and variety.

I honestly have no experience in the competitive genre of mount and blade so i will not try and argue what the competitive players want but i think a thing that should at least be considered is a duel class for them at least.

Like you said about sieges, the most heavily armored guy will always have upper hand to someone who takes any other class. There will be little to no diversity. As of now in the beta the only thing perks seem to do is change one slot in your inventory. You get a better bow, you get a slot in your inventory filled with a stack of arrows, a faster horse. All of those things get pretty boring. Even if they implement their second perk it will be boring because the combinations are just not as complicated as warband.
 
Younes123 said:
I still do not understand where its coming from that the old warband gold system is unbalanced as hell.

> Play siege
> Make kills
> Make more gold
> Decide to spare enough gold to get the best armor
> Die with it after doing maybe 2-3 kills
> Back to 0

The old warband system is way more rewarding for actually doing things. I agree that some tweaks have to be done when it comes to how you get the gold. Gold on hit or by doing an objective related to the gamemode (Siege where you capture the flag).
This isnt even how Warband works though...  Unless there is some game mode you are thinking of? Every game I played, you don't lose money or gear after dying. That is why it's unbalanced; the good players get kills, accumulate better gear, snowball effect.

What you describe sounds like CS:GO, which perhaps might be a cool system but there is too much gear to be doing that every time you die. Imagine having to pick all these slots after every death- head, shoulders (knees and toes), torso, gloves, legs, horse, horse armor, 4 weapon slots.

 
BayBear said:
I think the perk system is necessary for competitive play, but also does little to improve balance in non-competitive modes without point limitations like TDM or siege. The best class choice in non-competitive modes will always be the most armed & armored classes. Picking anything less than the best just hinders your chance of survival without any bonuses.

I'm curious what ideas and solutions Taleworlds has thought about for making modes without point limits full of balance and variety.

I think it might be convenient for competitive play, but not necessary.

vicwiz007 said:
This isnt even how Warband works though...  Unless there is some game mode you are thinking of? Every game I played, you don't lose money or gear after dying. That is why it's unbalanced; the good players get kills, accumulate better gear, snowball effect.

What you describe sounds like CS:GO, which perhaps might be a cool system but there is too much gear to be doing that every time you die. Imagine having to pick all these slots after every death- head, shoulders (knees and toes), torso, gloves, legs, horse, horse armor, 4 weapon slots.

I'm not completely sure of how the system works, but you definitely lose gold upon dying, though it can't go below the starting gold amount. Also the equipment you have selected doesn't really reset after dying, so if you can afford it you will spawn with the same stuff automatically. Some servers have tweaked the amount of gold earned through combat, so it might seem that the gold just keeps coming in those servers.
 
vicwiz007 said:
Younes123 said:
I still do not understand where its coming from that the old warband gold system is unbalanced as hell.

> Play siege
> Make kills
> Make more gold
> Decide to spare enough gold to get the best armor
> Die with it after doing maybe 2-3 kills
> Back to 0

The old warband system is way more rewarding for actually doing things. I agree that some tweaks have to be done when it comes to how you get the gold. Gold on hit or by doing an objective related to the gamemode (Siege where you capture the flag).
This isnt even how Warband works though...  Unless there is some game mode you are thinking of? Every game I played, you don't lose money or gear after dying. That is why it's unbalanced; the good players get kills, accumulate better gear, snowball effect.

What you describe sounds like CS:GO, which perhaps might be a cool system but there is too much gear to be doing that every time you die. Imagine having to pick all these slots after every death- head, shoulders (knees and toes), torso, gloves, legs, horse, horse armor, 4 weapon slots.

I don't know what server you playing on but the servers i play on you have a default of lets say 1500. You buy loot etc and you have 200. If you manage to get above 1500 and get lets say 2000 you keep the money. If you have below 1500 they just give you 1500 back. What do you mean you don't lose gear?

No one is asking for a complicated armor customization. Bannerlord seems to be sticking to the same base but with some addition (for example you have two layers of armor rather then one)
 
I play servers like regular old Deathmatch and Siege. Maybe this just shows how bad i am that i never realize the full extent of the features... i have never lost gear upon dying  :lol:

I will concede this one.
 
22 votes to 0 votes...

Where's the casual audience they are trying to appeal to?

I thought I'd stop Warband at 6000 but if Bannerlord isn't uniformly fixed before full release I'm sure I'll reach 10,000.
 
Maybe more customization to each individual class as to which equipment they carry breaking it down to examples,  sword to carry short arming swords, arming sword or long arming sword , shields, armor and etc to arrows or steel (light , medium, heavy ) rock, paper, scissors effect
 
The old system had the benefit of a more diverse crowd on the server. I do get the appeal of preset classes, as it certainly makes it easier to balance out eventualities.
However, since you're able to preview all classes in the main menu, it would be great to adjust the looks of your classes there. Eventually there'll also be the banner tool available, so it might be in the developers minds even now.
 
We already have a few votes in favor of the closed beta class system, but so far no one has come forward and explained why it would be better than the old one. I really want to see what points people favoring this new system make.

Bb said:
Maybe more customization to each individual class as to which equipment they carry breaking it down to examples,  sword to carry short arming swords, arming sword or long arming sword , shields, armor and etc to arrows or steel (light , medium, heavy ) rock, paper, scissors effect

More equipment customization of each individual class would kind of go against the whole idea of classes being more recognizable exposed by petmonster_tw.

IceNoVa said:
The old system had the benefit of a more diverse crowd on the server. I do get the appeal of preset classes, as it certainly makes it easier to balance out eventualities.
However, since you're able to preview all classes in the main menu, it would be great to adjust the looks of your classes there. Eventually there'll also be the banner tool available, so it might be in the developers minds even now.

Having a more diverse crowd in the server is just one of many benefits the old system had over the new one. The only real pro the new system offers is that it's easier to balance, but with a few months of beta left plus X months of EA after that, I'd say there's enough time to do the proper testing and balancing required in order to go with a different, better class system.
 
Back
Top Bottom