Multiplayer Class System

[Maroon]

One global armour value makes sense if you only have pre-made classes in multiplayer. Instead of keeping track of several different armour values, they can just say "This class gets 50 armour, so we give him this helmet and this piece of body armour and these boots.". Then all you need is a multiplier for different areas (say, attacks to the head deal 1.3x damage, attacks to the hands deal 0.9x damage), and you have a functional system where you only have to keep track of one armour value you need to tweak, you get different damage values based on where you hit, and everything works as intended.

But it only works if you only have pre-made classes. Any kind of equipment selection would invalidate the one armour value system (why would my global armour go up if I get a better helmet?). That's why the two are tied: the one armour value system is dependent on the pre-made class system. If they drop the classes, they have to drop the one armour value too, which is why my hopes aren't exactly high that they'll change much on this front.

 

[578]

Well, they can go through with classes, but the population will suffer greatly and everybody will run off to mods like PW, Mercenaries and the competitive warband-like mod that will come if they go with their current horribly boring system. I would rather have a strong base in native than play mods, since native will always have the most people.

 

[HUMMAN]

There is also classes in wb multiplayer, you choose archer infantry etc.(that you dont assign skill points, so i dont get full customizetion thing you are just buying items). For me it doesnt matter i am a blue moon guy, but cant understand why both sides are (tw and players) insisting too much. Hope tw can attract more players but there's also possibility warband having more people than bannerlord after 6 months. Maybe they can find middle ground, you select current classes with preset items.

 

[Klausolus]

There was literary majority on the thread about the blog of pre defined classes. Them and i think that there should be the option for it, its totaly different style Of play, and cosmeticaly different.

We didn't have as much information then as we do now, and let's be realistic, the majority of people following closely the developer blogs are mostly focused in singleplayer. The new system might look more attractive to those players because they don't plan to invest the time required in order to make an efficient use of a more complex and rich system, like the one we had in Warband. But the new system lacks the depth and versatility that captivated the more dedicated multiplayer fans.

And sadly, as Maroon pointed out, keeping both systems, while being the best option for everyone, is unlikely to happen.

There is also classes in wb multiplayer, you choose archer infantry etc.(that you dont assign skill points, so i dont get full customizetion thing you are just buying items). For me it doesnt matter i am a blue moon guy, but cant understand why both sides are (tw and players) insisting too much.

If you pay attention to the thread you'll understand why the new system is much more limiting than the old one. Of course both sides are insisting, we all want what we think will be best for the game.

Hope tw can attract more players but there's also possibility warband having more people than bannerlord after 6 months.

Yeah, and that'd be a total disaster.

Maybe they can find middle ground, you select current classes with preset items.

That wouldn't be middle ground.

I believe the new system has been designed to fit the skirmish and captain modes, and I guess it works in those modes, but not in the others. 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.

Literally the two things TW refuses to change the most.

This would be middle ground, it would require more work but it would satisfy both parties.

 

[Roy1012]

I do agree there will be a mass exodus to other mods when they come out. I imagine a mod based on native with customization will take over. They’ll change native back, but will it be too late?

 

[Al_Mansur]

Medieval armies were everything but everyone having every piece of equilment different.

隐藏

This is from a Spanish manuscript known to be quite reliable, there were many studies on it.
We're far from the clone vibe of Bannerlord. And even if the equipments were sometimes similar, they were variations in colors and (shortly after the period of the game) heraldry, which are totally gone in Bannerlord as there is no more personnal banner.

Otherwise we agree.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

隐藏

This is from a Spanish manuscript known to be quite reliable, there were many studies on it.
[...]

Are they actually that varied? There's two types of helmets, two types of shields, everyone in armour wears the same mail and coif (some darker, some lighter). The two swords I see are not quite the same, but similar (disc pommel, quillons curved forward). And that's between the two sides of this engagement.

The variety is all in the heraldic colours and patterns, which has yet to develop at the time of Bannerlord, as you say.

The only thing that stands out is the covering on the one horse to the left with the noticeable black and white pattern. I assume that knight is an important person in the depicted event.



Generally, it's true that there was little standardization in the middle ages. But they also had limited options in where to get their clothes, equipment and so forth, what materials to make them out of, etc. So they often would have wound up looking similar to one another after all.

 

[James_Lindsay]

Medieval armies used various equipment and that is simply irrefutable. Due to the nature of procuring arms and armours at that time, each set was bound to be unique, since mass production and industrialization/ uniform standards werent a thing yet. Troops did not all look the same, even before the heraldy. Although you can find many drawings of medieval battles where they all look the same, that is simply done for the sake of the authors sanity. Drawing all of them as they were wasnt quite viable.

Even on these you can see how almost every soldier looks fairly different to the other (for those that are in focus of the drawing, the ones in the background were not dedicated enough attention for obvious reasons.)

The level of variety present in an army of 20 000+ soldiers facing another army of simillar size, is not achievable in any game. That would warrant thousands of different items. Debating whether medieval armies were uniform or not is quite ridiculuos since claiming they were is counterintuitive and deprived of logic.

 

[Roy1012]

The level of variety present in an army of 20 000+ soldiers facing another army of simillar size, is not achievable in any game. That would warrant thousands of different items. Debating whether medieval armies were uniform or not is quite ridiculuos since claiming they were is counterintuitive and deprived of logic.

This.

Although you can find many drawings of medieval battles where they all look the same, that is simply done for the sake of the authors sanity.

That being said though, to play the devil's advocate, do you think the artist of varied-armour paintings varied equipment for the sake of the audience, so they can be more wowed by the painting? Not saying this is the case, just something to think about.

 

[DarthKiller]

So I had the chance to talk to one of the devs (not sure if he was actually real, but many confirmed to me that he is genuine):
I asked him if the class system was for every game-mode and he answered, that it is only meant to skirmish and captain mode (the competitive game-modes).

I quickly lost contact to him due to rounds being rather short and dead-chat is also in bannerlord so I could not ask any further.
This probably means that they right now want to test that system so that compettive won't have much changes once early-access starts.
I also imagine they put it in the current team-deathmatch because it was easier than having everyone look and jerk around with different items and rather have everyone get a gist about the balance of the competitve classes so that they fit perfectly on release.

Also, keep in mind what I said in the first sentence!

Cheers,
DarthKiller
Beta Tester

 

[Roy1012]

So I had the chance to talk to one of the devs (not sure if he was actually real, but many confirmed to me that he is genuine):
I asked him if the class system was for every game-mode and he answered, that it is only meant to skirmish and captain mode (the competitive game-modes).

I quickly lost contact to him due to rounds being rather short and dead-chat is also in bannerlord so I could not ask any further.
This probably means that they right now want to test that system so that compettive won't have much changes once early-access starts.
I also imagine they put it in the current team-deathmatch because it was easier than having everyone look and jerk around with different items and rather have everyone get a gist about the balance of the competitve classes so that they fit perfectly on release.

Also, keep in mind what I said in the first sentence!

Cheers,
DarthKiller
Beta Tester

That makes more sense tbh. Though take it with a grain of salt, as I doubt one of the devs would divulge such info instead of TW releasing it via dev blog.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

[...] Although you can find many drawings of medieval battles where they all look the same, that is simply done for the sake of the authors sanity. Drawing all of them as they were wasnt quite viable.
[...]

Quite right. The same is true for game designers, and it should thus come at no surprise that Bannerlord doesn't, for instance, include a hundred slight variations of the same type of helmet.

 

[James_Lindsay]

That being said though, to play the devil's advocate, do you think the artist of varied-armour paintings varied equipment for the sake of the audience, so they can be more wowed by the painting? Not saying this is the case, just something to think about.

The intended purpose of the drawing would also alter its contents. What idea/feeling does the author strive to convey? It is well clear that artists have an agenda and they relay it through their art unlike simply taking a photo of what you see. The latter being impossible for people before the 19th century. So we have to make do with what we got.

The obvious benefits of an author not drawing everything as it is, would be to save time, energy and or lack of skill. But also, if the goal is to simply depict and event, to simply make a record of it taking place, then the author may have not even have been present at the event thus sparing effort and making both sides look uniform. To commemorate a great victory the author may be commissioned from the king, thus making the winning side looke well equipped as to convey strength resepctively making the defeated look ragged.

It also really depends on the artist himself. Has the artist been present at the event? Has the artist got experience as a soldier? Rest asure artist in the day used to depict things based on their imagination or past experience. Army size (scale) also cant be deducted from a drawing. Drawing does not equate photo.

This drawing reflects the battle of Nicopolis. As you can see both armies seem almost 100% uniform, as we know that was most likely not the case based on common sense. The authors goal was to simply commemorate an event.

So yes, it is entirely possible that an artist made an epic drawing of knights fighting without being there or the event never even taking place.

 

[578]

Why do we bring history to this? Nobody cares about history when it comes to fun in an imaginary universe. We discuss practicality and fun-factor of classes, not history, please do not go off topic.

 

[Klausolus]

Can we please get back on topic?

So I had the chance to talk to one of the devs (not sure if he was actually real, but many confirmed to me that he is genuine):
I asked him if the class system was for every game-mode and he answered, that it is only meant to skirmish and captain mode (the competitive game-modes).

I quickly lost contact to him due to rounds being rather short and dead-chat is also in bannerlord so I could not ask any further.
This probably means that they right now want to test that system so that compettive won't have much changes once early-access starts.
I also imagine they put it in the current team-deathmatch because it was easier than having everyone look and jerk around with different items and rather have everyone get a gist about the balance of the competitve classes so that they fit perfectly on release.

Also, keep in mind what I said in the first sentence!

Cheers,
DarthKiller
Beta Tester

That makes more sense tbh. Though take it with a grain of salt, as I doubt one of the devs would divulge such info instead of TW releasing it via dev blog.

Seeing how the developers introduced to us the new system really makes me think that their original idea was, and quite probably still is, for it to completely replace the old one. I hope I'm wrong on that one, though. Sooner or later a developer will address the situation and better explain what their actual plan is.

 

[James_Lindsay]

Why do we bring history to this? Nobody cares about history when it comes to fun in an imaginary universe. We discuss practicality and fun-factor of classes, not history, please do not go off topic.

Yeah sorry, I got sidetracked. In my defense tho someone made a ridiculous claim that I just had to disprove.

That being siad I am all for the old warband system. It does indeed offer much more replayability and has a great entertainment value. Dumbing down a highlight of Mount and Blades multiplayer can never go well. For competitive tho a class system may work better. Hope the devs inquire about the communitys opinion regarding this matter.

 

[578]

Can we please get back on topic?

So I had the chance to talk to one of the devs (not sure if he was actually real, but many confirmed to me that he is genuine):
I asked him if the class system was for every game-mode and he answered, that it is only meant to skirmish and captain mode (the competitive game-modes).

I quickly lost contact to him due to rounds being rather short and dead-chat is also in bannerlord so I could not ask any further.
This probably means that they right now want to test that system so that compettive won't have much changes once early-access starts.
I also imagine they put it in the current team-deathmatch because it was easier than having everyone look and jerk around with different items and rather have everyone get a gist about the balance of the competitve classes so that they fit perfectly on release.

Also, keep in mind what I said in the first sentence!

Cheers,
DarthKiller
Beta Tester

That makes more sense tbh. Though take it with a grain of salt, as I doubt one of the devs would divulge such info instead of TW releasing it via dev blog.

Seeing how the developers introduced to us the new system really makes me think that their original idea was, and quite probably still is, for it to completely replace the old one. I hope I'm wrong on that one, though. Sooner or later a developer will address the situation and better explain what their actual plan is.

That's easy. The lead designer of multiplayer is a napoleonic wars community member. And somehow, they thought copying NW's system would work.

 

[Roy1012]

Why do we bring history to this? Nobody cares about history when it comes to fun in an imaginary universe. We discuss practicality and fun-factor of classes, not history, please do not go off topic.

I do agree historical arguments on this forum's only purpose are for people not taking part to laugh at the sheer sweatiness and stupidity of the people posting, though on the other side of the coin, a large section of this community are fans of history, and thus want to see it emulated in games. Sure, you can do whatever you want with a fantasy world, but one based on medieval societies will gain legitimacy with fans by taking features of said societies.

 

[578]

Why do we bring history to this? Nobody cares about history when it comes to fun in an imaginary universe. We discuss practicality and fun-factor of classes, not history, please do not go off topic.

I do agree historical arguments on this forum's only purpose are for people not taking part to laugh at the sheer sweatiness and stupidity of the people posting, though on the other side of the coin, a large section of this community are fans of history, and thus want to see it emulated in games. Sure, you can do whatever you want with a fantasy world, but one based on medieval societies will gain legitimacy with fans by taking features of said societies.

You have swords, you have medieval armor, you do not have any crazy abilities or super speed. That's enough historical accuracy for a medieval game. Formations and everyone looking the same will be okay for 1-2 times on events, ultimately they will be boring though.

 

[TheBerserk]

Can we please get back on topic?

So I had the chance to talk to one of the devs (not sure if he was actually real, but many confirmed to me that he is genuine):
I asked him if the class system was for every game-mode and he answered, that it is only meant to skirmish and captain mode (the competitive game-modes).

I quickly lost contact to him due to rounds being rather short and dead-chat is also in bannerlord so I could not ask any further.
This probably means that they right now want to test that system so that compettive won't have much changes once early-access starts.
I also imagine they put it in the current team-deathmatch because it was easier than having everyone look and jerk around with different items and rather have everyone get a gist about the balance of the competitve classes so that they fit perfectly on release.

Also, keep in mind what I said in the first sentence!

Cheers,
DarthKiller
Beta Tester

That makes more sense tbh. Though take it with a grain of salt, as I doubt one of the devs would divulge such info instead of TW releasing it via dev blog.

Seeing how the developers introduced to us the new system really makes me think that their original idea was, and quite probably still is, for it to completely replace the old one. I hope I'm wrong on that one, though. Sooner or later a developer will address the situation and better explain what their actual plan is.

That's easy. The lead designer of multiplayer is a napoleonic wars community member. And somehow, they thought copying NW's system would work.

Obviously the difference is that Napoleonic Wars part of a historical respect, and especially it's not too disturbing on NW because there are many classes that differ, gunners, cavalry, sapper, infantry, grenadier...
While there unfortunately in Bannerlord it will probably be limited to just the infantry, cavalry and archery, and it will be boring