MP Multiplayer Class System

[578]

I think the class system is not just flawed, it's bad to the core. And the Warband sytem enabled us to create our own classes.

What's bad about core of classes? I think there are pros and cons of both system equally.

Could you please elaborate on the pros? We haven't really heared that many so far.

In warbands customization system you trade coin with equipments (which is actually just stats). Other than this causing a snowball effect, it is just too straightforward. You just try to get best or your most comfortable loadout, there is no sacrifices(except feom coin, which is core of snowball) made to play around your enemies weakness.

Bannerlord system on the other hand, you have to choose your strengths, and it doesn't have to be just stats. It can be a perk to give you ability to shoot arrow in wider arc while on horse. It can make you deal more damage while using single handed sword while using no sword. It can reduce penalty of two handed weapons on horse. It can do things that warband mp does like giving you better weapon or armor. While not causing any snowball. People just need to observe and adapt their play style and this is what competitive games are about.

Snowball effect exists in Bannerlord in a bigger percentage than warband due to how powerful cavalry is, also warband is straightforward indeed. Just like CSGO is and it's the biggest shooter out there and will be there for a long time.

 

[blondiecan]

One other point I would like to make is: please don't exaggerate your statements. The vast majority (and I really do mean vast) of Mount & Blade players play singleplayer. Less than 10% of people playing the game right now are playing MP. Clearly, there is something that discourages a lot of people from playing MP, which is why we are trying to make that side of the game more accessible.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are going to overlook this because it contradicts what many of you are saying. From Taleworlds' POV, Warband MP was a failure. I am not sure if Warband's loadout system was a contributing factor to MP not being played proportionally to SP, but this is the reason Taleworlds feels the need to change things with Bannerlord. Regarding the poll, I think it's important to consider there is likely a survivorship bias skewing the results. Most of us voting in this poll are veterans of Warband MP, people who saw no glaring issues and played it for years. The people who were turned off probably aren't here right now, likewise with the people new to the series that Taleworlds is likely targeting.

At the moment, I still prefer Warband's system to Bannerlord's, but I think I'd be more receptive to the new system if they expanded the perk selection and allowed us to cosmetically change our armor. They'd still need to find a way to have the system work convincingly with other gamemodes like Siege because right now all I can imagine is castles being assaulted and defended by hordes of Fianns and other high-tier troops. As Callum said, Siege was by far the most popular gamemode in Warband, so it should be important that it works optimally with whatever system they end up using.

Spoiler

Data from today at 20:00 GMT+1, sources being Steam and Warband's server filter:

9995 players in M&B: Warband.
1601 of them playing multiplayer .
1185 of those players are in native.

Data can't be 100% accurate but we can get an approximate idea.

It's an undeniable fact that M&B's biggest attraction lies in the singleplayer campaign, I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.

I think it's clear by now that one of Taleworlds' main intentions with the changes was to attract more players to the multiplayer side of the game, but in order to do that correctly, they first should know what was keeping players away in the first place. Do they know?

I think they do know. It's not a decision they would make without any thought and data, especially after how confident they have been that they aren't going to get rid of classes.

This comes from the perspective of someone who tried on several occasions to get into multiplayer. Everything Callum says about the average players' perception of  game modes, the equipment and gold system, etc is true to my perception of them, and it's why I haven't written off classes as quickly as others. As a striking example, up until a week or two ago I didn't know you could even lose gold/equipment on death. You guys may remember this comment of mine in the other thread... A good example of how ambiguous the system is.

I get into a game, no idea who is winning or losing or what the objective is half the time. Try to compete with the good players; impossible. Switch to spamming thrown weapons. It's dumb fun for maybe an hour but nowhere near the fun that a competitive game like Overwatch can hook you on.

I'm going to assume most of you guys really enjoyed Warband mp since you're here, so just trying to give you the other sides perspective.

@theberserk if you're going to be disrespectful to them and not contribute please don't bother posting. I assure you that meme is more representative of the image we imagine you rather than TW after posting such things.

Its incredibly annoying when players who've earned the skill to cut through swathes of noobs like they're Aragorn are criticized for ruining the game by being too good, and that the only way to revamp multiplayer to be more appealing is by gimping them. Basically the criticisms of communism. We played your game for years, kept the multiplayer scene alive, now you want us gone.

Wouldn't a rating system to separate noobs and elites be useful? Spread the players out while the game is thriving, have ranked and casual servers, ranked for players of similar skill, casual for all. Then let time run its course.

 

[Younes]

One other point I would like to make is: please don't exaggerate your statements. The vast majority (and I really do mean vast) of Mount & Blade players play singleplayer. Less than 10% of people playing the game right now are playing MP. Clearly, there is something that discourages a lot of people from playing MP, which is why we are trying to make that side of the game more accessible.

I feel like a lot of people in this thread are going to overlook this because it contradicts what many of you are saying. From Taleworlds' POV, Warband MP was a failure. I am not sure if Warband's loadout system was a contributing factor to MP not being played proportionally to SP, but this is the reason Taleworlds feels the need to change things with Bannerlord. Regarding the poll, I think it's important to consider there is likely a survivorship bias skewing the results. Most of us voting in this poll are veterans of Warband MP, people who saw no glaring issues and played it for years. The people who were turned off probably aren't here right now, likewise with the people new to the series that Taleworlds is likely targeting.

At the moment, I still prefer Warband's system to Bannerlord's, but I think I'd be more receptive to the new system if they expanded the perk selection and allowed us to cosmetically change our armor. They'd still need to find a way to have the system work convincingly with other gamemodes like Siege because right now all I can imagine is castles being assaulted and defended by hordes of Fianns and other high-tier troops. As Callum said, Siege was by far the most popular gamemode in Warband, so it should be important that it works optimally with whatever system they end up using.

Spoiler

Data from today at 20:00 GMT+1, sources being Steam and Warband's server filter:

9995 players in M&B: Warband.
1601 of them playing multiplayer .
1185 of those players are in native.

Data can't be 100% accurate but we can get an approximate idea.

It's an undeniable fact that M&B's biggest attraction lies in the singleplayer campaign, I don't think anyone here is saying otherwise.

I think it's clear by now that one of Taleworlds' main intentions with the changes was to attract more players to the multiplayer side of the game, but in order to do that correctly, they first should know what was keeping players away in the first place. Do they know?

I think they do know. It's not a decision they would make without any thought and data, especially after how confident they have been that they aren't going to get rid of classes.

This comes from the perspective of someone who tried on several occasions to get into multiplayer. Everything Callum says about the average players' perception of  game modes, the equipment and gold system, etc is true to my perception of them, and it's why I haven't written off classes as quickly as others. As a striking example, up until a week or two ago I didn't know you could even lose gold/equipment on death. You guys may remember this comment of mine in the other thread... A good example of how ambiguous the system is.

I get into a game, no idea who is winning or losing or what the objective is half the time. Try to compete with the good players; impossible. Switch to spamming thrown weapons. It's dumb fun for maybe an hour but nowhere near the fun that a competitive game like Overwatch can hook you on.

I'm going to assume most of you guys really enjoyed Warband mp since you're here, so just trying to give you the other sides perspective.

@theberserk if you're going to be disrespectful to them and not contribute please don't bother posting. I assure you that meme is more representative of the image we imagine you rather than TW after posting such things.

Its incredibly annoying when players who've earned the skill to cut through swathes of noobs like they're Aragorn are criticized for ruining the game by being too good, and that the only way to revamp multiplayer to be more appealing is by gimping them. Basically the criticisms of communism. We played your game for years, kept the multiplayer scene alive, now you want us gone.

Wouldn't a rating system to separate noobs and elites be useful? Spread the players out while the game is thriving, have ranked and casual servers, ranked for players of similar skill, casual for all. Then let time run its course.

This is exactly the point, i play multiplayer 99% of the time do you see me complaining about how singleplayer is hard? I always struggle the few times i play but i don't force my views down the throat of those who play singleplayer just because i suck at it.

The same way singleplayer people have invested thousands upon hours and slice through armies of 400 while they have 80 men why would the multiplayer players who played for thousands of hours and have mastered the combat system be punished because they have invested the time and patience in mastering the combat?

 

[blondiecan]

Its also marketed as a grand single player sandbox adventure. Why wouldn't 90% of its players be in single player? Why does that have to imply that there's something wrong with the multiplayer? This is directed at the dev quote from earlier pages.

 

[BlazingScribe]

Before I put in my two cents; I want to point something out. The "Casual" players some people in this thread call out probably won’t comment much. They're content to read the blogs or have just put Bannerlord out of mind until it actually comes out and get in their face. This discussion board is a perfect example of groupthink/an echo chamber. From what I see most people in this thread have the same opinion, the same points, and the same perspective. The opinion is fine in of itself. But be careful with the assumption you speak for truly everyone, rather than the select few who truly are passionate about this issue.


That out of the way, here's my thoughts. I speak only for myself, my own experience, and my own preferences and observations.

I did not enjoy Warband multiplayer. I really liked Napoleonic Wars multiplayer (I was even part of a couple line regiments), and I even had a good amount of fun in Fire and Sword’s coop horde defense mode, janky as it was. But Warband itself did not appeal much to me. This was probably because I was always less interested in the combat mechanics themselves than what they allow me to do. Napoleonic Wars let me be a part of a large battle line or defend against massive attacks with cannons and musket fire. Warband let me pummel a few spinning naked guys with an axe before getting skewered by confused friendlies. From what I remember Warband's system of class building was okay. It wasn’t good, it wasn’t terrible. I thought it lacked a lot of the interesting faction specialization from single player and didn’t offer enough options to really make me feel like I was playing differently. Also I had gripes with the Rhodok armor selection but that’s just me being petty.

With that in mind, Bannerlord. I like the new system. I think it is a better design for the purposes of Captains mode (the multiplayer mode that most interests me) and to a lesser extend the 6’s mode (Less sure about that one but eh.) I do agree the restrictions are kind of weird when put into a casual deathmatch setting. There I would not mind some kind of system similar to Warband, because that’s where versatility in gameplay general silliness has more of place. If I could have my ideal multiplayer setup, I would have the current bannerlord system, but with more options and perks available (can I send in my Cataphracts as heavy melee cav rather than lancers? Can I turn my shielded spearmen into a line of pikemen, ect), and a system similar to Warband’s in deathmatch style modes.

 

[578]

The problem with what you mention is that it's captain mode. Which is not even pvp in my book, its pvpve which is something i'm not interested at all. Classes can work there because you command troops, and troops are based on your class which is a totally fine design to go with when you command armies. That said, it is entirely different to real pvp modes, where it's you, your gear and real persons, friends or enemies.

 

[Younes]

Before I put in my two cents; I want to point something out. The "Casual" players some people in this thread call out probably won’t comment much. They're content to read the blogs or have just put Bannerlord out of mind until it actually comes out and get in their face. This discussion board is a perfect example of groupthink/an echo chamber. From what I see most people in this thread have the same opinion, the same points, and the same perspective. The opinion is fine in of itself. But be careful with the assumption you speak for truly everyone, rather than the select few who truly are passionate about this issue.


That out of the way, here's my thoughts. I speak only for myself, my own experience, and my own preferences and observations.

I did not enjoy Warband multiplayer. I really liked Napoleonic Wars multiplayer (I was even part of a couple line regiments), and I even had a good amount of fun in Fire and Sword’s coop horde defense mode, janky as it was. But Warband itself did not appeal much to me. This was probably because I was always less interested in the combat mechanics themselves than what they allow me to do. Napoleonic Wars let me be a part of a large battle line or defend against massive attacks with cannons and musket fire. Warband let me pummel a few spinning naked guys with an axe before getting skewered by confused friendlies. From what I remember Warband's system of class building was okay. It wasn’t good, it wasn’t terrible. I thought it lacked a lot of the interesting faction specialization from single player and didn’t offer enough options to really make me feel like I was playing differently. Also I had gripes with the Rhodok armor selection but that’s just me being petty.

With that in mind, Bannerlord. I like the new system. I think it is a better design for the purposes of Captains mode (the multiplayer mode that most interests me) and to a lesser extend the 6’s mode (Less sure about that one but eh.) I do agree the restrictions are kind of weird when put into a casual deathmatch setting. There I would not mind some kind of system similar to Warband, because that’s where versatility in gameplay general silliness has more of place. If I could have my ideal multiplayer setup, I would have the current bannerlord system, but with more options and perks available (can I send in my Cataphracts as heavy melee cav rather than lancers? Can I turn my shielded spearmen into a line of pikemen, ect), and a system similar to Warband’s in deathmatch style modes.

The warband gold system definitely does need a rework that's pretty clear by now, even make a complete new one if they want. The class system only works for a few modes like captain mode that you mentioned and perhaps their skirmish mode.

But taleworlds has to yet implement it in the modes that you know, are actual present in warband because they only seem to have allowed gamemodes that are new but nothing from the old classic siege or battle gamemode and how they decide to work it out.

The problem are not the classes in multiplayer, its the customization they offer. Those "perks" are a significant downgrade from the freedom and customization that warband was known for and this pisses off the players who have played that way for a long time. Removing the freedom from players has never been a solution to any game and since warband is one of those games that is known for giving freedom to the players, either multiplayer or singleplayer. Now removing that freedom will piss the people off for obvious reasons.

Taleworlds recently had a dev blog concerning questions from the community not once was this issue addressed and this pisses off people even more.

The problem with what you mention is that it's captain mode. Which is not even pvp in my book, its pvpve which is something i'm not interested at all. Classes can work there because you command troops, and troops are based on your class which is a totally fine design to go with when you command armies. That said, it is entirely different to real pvp modes, where it's you, your gear and real persons, friends or enemies.

This, taleworlds is allowing the gamemodes where their class system works but not the one where in practice it would fail.

 

[Al_Mansur]

In addition, things like saving loadouts and tagging items as "high priority" for when you can't afford the whole loadout would massively make life easier.
Naturally, this also means the loadout menu should be accessible out of gameplay, i.e. when you're not on a server, so you can design loadouts before you play.

I often thought about this too, it's something very important. Btw the said customized loadouts could appear like on top on the equipment selection slots, along with their costs - green when you can afford it, red when you cannot.

 

[578]

Βumping for more people to vote.

 

[Al_Mansur]

It's a pitty that the devs don't care.

 

[Memoefe]

It's a pitty that the devs don't care.

It's a pitty you are being ignorant.

 

[DanAngleland]

Why is that ignorant? I think I am correct in saying that the devs have stated that they aren't giving up on this new system, that they think it's the way to go. In the sense that they aren't going to change it because of the feedback they get, Al-Mansur is correct.

I had my reservations from first hearing of it, and like many players I'm afraid I'm not sold on the idea now that I've been playing the beta for a few days. The classes are quite restrictive; as an example, I will talk about the lowest tier troops. You can usually choose to carry a shield as one of your 'perks', but you cannot choose what weapon you shall carry it with- so if the basic weapon is an axe or sword, you could get a shield OR a spear via a perk. Some lower tier troops are actually quite useful, but generally you need a shield to survive because of the low armour rating, and spears are really useful for countering the swinging of bardiches and longswords. So in Skirmish it's a small drawback, no big deal, but imagine being in a huge multiplayer battle and not being able to equip a shield. The armies are already going to be depressingly uniform in appearance in any case because of the perk system, and God help us if the default battle modes don't have some sort of limit on cavalry, but if low tier troops can't take useful weapons like spears AND have a shield to give them some protection, then virtually nobody will choose them. So it could be battles of 200 berserkers vs 200 fiann.

I do like some of the choices they've presented us with (I like that you can choose pila with the legionary; as in real life for the classic Romans, they can serve as modestly sized spears and are really effective in melee. Or you can take heavier armour, or replace your sword with a mace), but overall it just feels restrictive.

 

[JustinTime49]

Its crazy that people actually support a more limiting system. Personally, I don't see why they can't find a compromise between the two systems. Instead of classes being a priority, they can act more like a preset loadout more causual players can choose if they(somehow) feel overwhelmed by the gold/progression system.

I have played warband for thousands of hours, and ik this might seem like a lie, but my first multiplayer game I played was a few weeks ago. The multiplayer never interested me and I was too ignorant to know how to join a server(without being kicked) until recently. After experiencing the fact that I can play any playstyle I want without restriction its crazy to think they have gone so extreme as to limit the players' choice. I like playing heavily armored archers and heavily armoured cav with a courser. Especially the way cav is now in bannerlord, the heavy horses are practically the best due to their crazy hitpoints, damage calculations, and the fact that they feel faster than the coursers in warband, why bother choosing anyone other than knights unless you want to roleplay or something.

It truly is a pity the devs decided to shove the criticsm in our faces though, saying we just aren't ready for change when it just clearly is an inferior system in most all ways.

 

[Maggot]

New system is trying to appeal to a casual audience that doesn't exist. The kind of player that thinks having different armor rating for different bodyparts is "too much information" is probably not going to play Bannerlord in the first place.

 

[Noudelle]

New system is trying to appeal to a casual audience that doesn't exist. The kind of player that thinks having different armor rating for different bodyparts is "too much information" is probably not going to play Bannerlord in the first place.

That's already in the game.

 

[FBohler]

My point is: totally free customization leads to meta-sweetspots which are generally bad for the game.

 

[TheBerserk]

My point is: totally free customization leads to meta-sweetspots which are generally bad for the game.

but a restriction on the choice is not better especially when the archers and riders are even stronger than in the first game, and some classes do not even have a shield.
I can not wait to see the multiplayer battles with this system with not even 30% of the classes used.

 

[FBohler]

With set classes they can at least try to balance the less used into the game.

This is almost impossible to do with open ended customization.

 

[chubbyninja89]

I have to agree with a number of what people have already said.

I do think that just making 7 or so different classes for each faction is pretty dumb.

I think what would work better would be

Option A: To have the have the traditional 3 different classes, being infantry, ranged, and cavalry, but have them all have sub classes within them that are different depending on which faction it is.

or

Option B: To have there just be the three main classes, but have there be different equipment options based on various things withing that particular faction, such as berserkers for the "Nordic" faction or other such faction specific things.

 

[JuanNieve]

I would prefer that there were no class and instead the player could choose the attributes and perks of the character and thus create a "class" that best suits his game. In addition, it should be easy to edit and even add the possibility to save different profile class's. The current class system could be preserved for captain mode