Multiplayer Game Modes - Updated Info and Discussion

Users who are viewing this thread

Flavberg said:
It's all nice and good that you will cater to new and casual players, but the core of your community is formed by competitive players. These players don't need archetypes or have their hands held. If anything was nice about Warband, it was the multiplayer, and nerfing it for some guy that's going to play the game for 2 hours and then refund it because he gets slaughtered by veteran is just going to be very bad. You're going to displease 2 sides at once.

I understand you want to attract new players, but let's face it, you don't need to hold their hands. They can learn the game if they're interested in it, if not, they can have bot battles on singleplayer if multiplayer is too hard for them.

What's going to be in next? Hints that appear on the screen telling you that you can swing a sword with left click?

Saying that the selling points are not this or that or whatever, that's just wrong. People love Warband because of its versatility and how flexible it can be, especially in multiplayer.
They don't need hold new player hands, on the contrary, TW must CARRY them in to the battlefield. Multiplayer mods must have very detailed tutorial with bots. This is BUSINESS and consumers must be persuaded by the producer. If new players is on their own, they will abondon the game pretty quickly since they will not understand what is going on.
 
Just a headsup Munby, Surkan and Bjorn (and anyone else tempted) - this thread is specifically meant for discussion and feedback for the developers. Do not engage in spam or pointless flame-posts. Otherwise you will lose your ability to participate.
 
Unfortunately, it will probably be too late to add back in the game the item management system as official feature, as all the multiplayer probably has been shaped around the perk system pillar. It was a bad decision all along, as the perk system was a FANTASTIC idea for Captain's mode (who cares about customizing your armor that much when you get to command your army) and probably Skirmish for balancing and matchmaking purpose,but it deals a devastating blow to any other mode (Battle, Siege, Duel...) where choosing your style and armor was yes battle planning and strategy but also flavor. The flavor aspect seems so stupid and marginal when you think about it, yet no other game has ever taken such a risk. Warband gave you complete freedom over everything, and that feeling helped you and kept you playing on and on. Also (of course there's not that much work to be done in order to fix it) we don't want a battlefield with 100 players having more or less the same armor, this variety was guaranteed by player-chosen equipment (one would get a super expensive weapon and go t1 armor, the other would gamble on looting and would go full armor t1 weapon for example). I can assure you customization was one of the aspect that made us fall in love with Warband multiplayer.
 
Laenir said:
the perk system was a FANTASTIC idea for Captain's mode and probably Skirmish for balancing and matchmaking purpose,but it deals a devastating blow to any other mode (Battle, Siege, Duel...)

As for Siege, I know right? It's so open to be abused. Maybe TW planned something to avoid abuse, i don't know. After number of killed offensive perk players reached the total player number in siege map, map will be fed with weapons on the ground, until siege is over. People will not feel any need to go for offensive perk to get stronger weapon because after a minute or so weapons will be everywhere.

Only defensive, or agility perks will get attention, offensive weapon perks will be ignored.

About duel, if TW plans to add 1v1 quick duel servers for MM and ranked system (i feel excited), it may make sense since player shouldn't wait his enemy to equip itself for a long time in quick 1v1 match.
 
Callum_TaleWorlds said:
...

We want to make it clear that our aim is not to alienate our existing playerbase through our efforts to attract new players to the game. We will always listen to your feedback and try to work with you to create a game which you will enjoy playing for years to come. But, with that being said, we also have our own thoughts and ideas that we would like to put out there and we are confident that game modes like Skirmish will be well received if you are willing to give them a chance.

This is why Bannerlord should enter early access/in-dev. Now of course only Taleworld's will know when it's ready for early access but doing an early access release allows you to test features and design decisions, get data and solicit feedback as you go. It would probably result in a stronger finished product and it would stop all the meme's of "Bannerlord when?"

I hope you guys are considering it. Even if it were only a couple game modes it would likely be well worth it.
 
lolbash said:
What? Where in the perks option can I find the option to wear a farmer hat and carry 20 war darts?

Scarf ace is perfectly correct in that this is just another limiting system to force players to play what is Taleworld’s version of the meta instead of letting the community decide for itself. Come on. forcing players to pick from like 5 buttons that only give you something like “spears” and “better armor” is not the same as being able to carry 3 shields, a lance and an armored horse while going naked.

Those play styles are some of the things that turn me off Warband multiplayer. Carrying 20 darts/javelins feels stupid and makes the person an annoyance, it isn't realistic. So too carrying three shields and going around naked or wearing a dress or using something to great effect that shouldn't work but does because the weapon has unrealistic properties (like a cumbersome piece of wood that can block at light speed and of course never breaks against your sword). It feels like trolling and breaks any sense of immersion I previously had. I've done the 20 javelins thing myself in times of boredom and it routinely annoys people to the point that some servers don't allow it or people just agree not to do that sort of thing.

That's not to say that I am totally comfortable with the idea of presets and 'perks' for every official game mode, but I can happily live without people carrying loads of darts and shields and running around topless. If nothing else it solves that problem. Whether it limits people to the point that there is a lack of diversity in appearance and fighting styles is of crucial importance. The old system would work fine if there were sensible limitations so that carrying 4 bags of javelins hampered you due to these bags getting in the way of your arms as you throw a javelin or a simple inability to carry more than two shields. You could even have a small suggested range of presets, alterable with these 'perks', while having the option (like in any game's option menu, you get the 'advanced' button that unlocks extra things to fiddle with) to choose from a much greater range of items.

The news that we will be able to play big battles, just not in matchmaking mode, is great. However I am not at all sure about the presets thing (back when we first saw it in Captain Battle I assumed it was just for that mode) and it is a reminder, in my eyes, that a pre-release public multiplayer testing period could be very important. There will always be balance issues as well as technical problems that are only found when a large number of players play the game, and I am hoping that Taleworlds have indeed decided to do a beta test (which they have occasionally said over the years was under consideration).

Varrak said:
Laenir said:
the perk system was a FANTASTIC idea for Captain's mode and probably Skirmish for balancing and matchmaking purpose,but it deals a devastating blow to any other mode (Battle, Siege, Duel...)

As for Siege, I know right? It's so open to be abused. Maybe TW planned something to avoid abuse, i don't know. After number of killed offensive perk players reached the total player number in siege map, map will be fed with weapons on the ground, until siege is over. People will not feel any need to go for offensive perk to get stronger weapon because after a minute or so weapons will be everywhere.

Only defensive, or agility perks will get attention, offensive weapon perks will be ignored.

That doesn't make any sense to me. If you are sacrificing better armour for a better weapon as an 'offensive perk', then that is exactly the same as the broad decision commonly facing players in Warband that Laenir describes; you choose strong armour or you spend your money on the best swords and go with default armour. For the purposes of it littering the ground with great weapons, there is no difference between Bannerlord and Warband- and I haven't experienced such a plethora of fantastic weaponry lying about for me to pick up in Warband that it influences my decision on what set up to go with; in my experience coming across a superior weapon is far too infrequent for it to be a factor, even with large player counts. Apart from anything else weapons don't hang around for ever, the game makes them disappear after a while. I think you're getting carried away with that line of thought.
 
First off, I just want to say thanks Callum for clearing some things up; it must be very difficult for you as you are caught up in the crossfire but you have been doing a great job at answering people's questions.

As for the MP modes, I am in favour for all of it and am eager to see how they turn out. My only concern is how this will affect MP mods. For instance, how easy will it be to modify the perks themselves? Will there still be ways to customise your armour (e.g. unlockable, hopefully not paid, skins)? How would the perk system work with something like, say Full Invasion, where there are many possibilities for the loadouts? (Although a perk / class based FI would be kind of interesting to see imo)


and to those saying, "but Fortnite / PUBG has this 1 life system and they're popular" By the time BL comes out PUBG / FN may not even be around  :razz:


Edit: @DanAngeland Maybe they could have some sort of 'legacy / classic' servers or server mode that allow the Warband way of customisation.
 
Duh said:
I don't believe that customization will end up so restricted that it would warrant the level of outrage some have expressed. I think that we can engage TW on this matter and increase the variety and complexity of equipment and perks in both competitive and casual play (if it is indeed so limited as some fear) - allthewhile using, polishing and expanding upon the system they habe build. Not every desire may be fulfilled, but the total rejection of their approach leaves no room for compromise and cooperation. Every little improvement is better than nothing.
It's obvious as all hell that the new system can't provide the options that the old one did, even when customised. We've been over this, and we know what will be missed out on, and we know that what'll be missing are things that people really like, that many would say are integral to the series' MP identity.
As for the idea that totally rejecting something is a bad move, you're totally wrong. Game communities have rejected new or proposed features and mechanisms before. It happens all the time, and when developers listen it's generally a good thing. I could bring the Red Orchestra 2 example again, and there are countless others too of course.
There isn't much to compromise on. Those who dislike the new system disagree with it on a pretty fundamental level. Again, we have evidence from other games that not compromising is a perfectly fine approach. We don't want "a bit more options", we want casual play be free of these new restrictions and find that the reasons Callum gave for the new system global implementation are flawed to say the least.
Again, customising the new system a bit won't get it where we want it to be. The entire "lol just mod it" argument has been dealt with a ton of times now.

Also noting on "trying to achieve the wrong things" in regards to battle - I simply cannot share the anger about not including it in MatchMaking. MatchMaking is new. MM Battle is not something that was taken away from us. We get the BL equivalent to WB. We get a thing we want.
Really? You still don't get this?
Look, matchmaking isn't a pointless thing. It has its benefits. By not giving a large scale, Battle-type mode matchmaking, you are making it way harder for such games to be played.
Server browsers have problems. That's a reason why games use MM systems in the first place. One core problem as it pertains to large capacity servers is of course that players don't want to join the empty ones. Nobody wants to play with a tenth of the amount of players there should be. The result oftentimes is that you get a few full servers, while plenty of people (probably more than enough to fill another one) are queuing up to join them.

I sometimes get the impression that you are conflating the benefits of Battle for Matchmaking and the benefits of Matchmaking for Battle. The former is likely not super relevant to TW as it seems to fit their vision to a lesser degree than what they have currently have.
Much of the community totally disagrees with "their vision". That's why people are criticising things and bringing counter-suggestions, for god's sake.

Yes, maybe Battle will engage people in Match Making. It may even be a selling point if it is marketed accordingly. But that may not be what TW wants and it may not have the greatest appeal to the largest audience out of all the possible features - that is ultimately speculation.
Wouldn't you say that we can probably be safe in assuming that 6v6 "competitive" gameplay is not exactly the most appealing aspect of M&B MP to an outsider? Look at the reaction, go to other sites too. People all over the place are totally rejecting all this.
Maybe the other modes are more engaging - especially to newer players. And maybe they aren't. Personally, I have more doubts about Duel MM than anything else. And I do feel that Battles would be a better choice  in terms of audience appeal than them. That is to say... the casual battles you describe with hundreds of players.
Are you seriously saying there isn't a huge appeal to being able to giant battles? It's pretty much what people dream of. Just think about it. You open a lobby with your mates, and the MM sends you into a big battle. You can get in and out quickly, enhancing the "pick up and play" element.
Nonetheless, even if Battles aren't part of Matchmaking, they will still be there - as we know them.
As we knew them. Big battles are dead outside of planned events, precisely due to their inconvenient nature on a server browser system, which is exactly why matchmaking would be such a huge boon.
And it's wrong to even say that they'll be there "as we know them". The addition of matchmaking changes everything. Every game that has both matchmaking and a community server browser has the same thing going on:
Matchmaking takes center-stage, community servers are a sideshow.
All modes that are not covered under matchmaking get deprioritised and automatically made less popular than the "mainstream" matchmaking ones. That this could be fatal for a mode that uses big player counts is painfully obvious.
If they will be as popular as people claim in Bannerlord, there is little cause for concern. Yes, there may be a few newbies less playing. What does it matter if the 200+ slot servers are full? Are you really that outraged because you would have to manually switch servers upon death? That would be kind of exaggerated. And more importantly - IF battles prove to be massively popular and ANY of the initial MM modes end up lying dormant... there is a good chance we will see Battle in MM anywho. (Which opens the can of Worms of casual vs. competitive, but let's get there when we get there).
I already explained the inherent problems with server browsers and big servers. Matchmaking is a whole lot more convenient and efficient when it comes to filling up big servers. Having an MM system and not using it for this is just incredibly wasteful.
As for the "if it succeeds then it'll be added to MM anyway", that's as lazy an argument as the "lol just mod the game" one. If they de-emphasise the Battle mode by not having it in MM, then they won't benefit from that aspect of the game nearly as much than if they were to prioritise it and loudly and proudly show it off. If it does get into MM, the damage may be already done, the potential sales lost.
I'll get into this more further down the post, but I'll just say that when compared to modes like 6v6 Skirmish, the draw of big battles is far more obvious.

The thing is that that selling point exists either way. Do you really think it would have a noticable effect on MARKETING whether or not they have the ability to automatically matchmake said battles?
I've only said that exact thing a half a dozen times. Come on, think about it. Convenience is massively important. If Taleworlds is able to say "you can join epic battles on the fly with our MM system", that obviously is an attractive proposition. Even better is when people watch streamers as they quickly reach a new battle with absolutely no effort. I'd argue that's part of what made PUBG go viral, the simple fact that there was no need to navigate a server browser to get in those huge servers.
Compare that to "you can play 6v6 competitive, like, uh, damn near everything else these days".
Especially when Sieges are a thing in Matchmaking? That argument stands on weak legs and I am pretty sure that it can't be used to change anyone's mind.
Siege benefits from MM a lot less as it's a continuous thing, you respawn. When you get killed there's no reason to find a new game.
Also, Siege benefits less from huge player numbers than Battle does. In Siege, the gameplay doesn't change much between say, 64 and 128 players. The fighting will always be spread across various isolated locations. A field Battle is the very opposite - More players directly affect the way you play and experience everything - the scale of it all is far more more impactful from a visual and gameplay perspective.

Also, by adding more modes to the matchmaking you aren't splitting anything up - you are just moving players from the browser to the matchmaking.
 
Rhade pretty much summed up all my thoughts in general. Excellent post. All I can do is sharing what I envisioned for Bannerlord.

What should the devs do instead of focusing on 6v6 game modes with an arbitrary upgrade system?
They should focus on what made Warband great, namely tools for players to organize themselves and make the most out of the powerful engine:

If Bannerlord can support, let's say, 400 players in a match, why not make a system where for every 20th person that joins, u have a commander with a little more decorated but equally powerful equipment? Players get automatically assigned to a squad of 20 people. Let the players have the option of using the same banner as their commander, let them be able to pick banners with their squad-logo/faction-logo. Let them skip being in a squad if they so wish.


Why not make shieldwalls a viable tactic? Let us be able to do an overhead swing with polearms behind our teammate wielding a shield, let us be able to brace spears as to counter cavalry...


Reduce strafe speed so as to force direct confrontation or a retreat where the retreating foe exposes his back. Perhaps back to Warband level where polearms still are viable in 1v1 combat. Or, I dunno, have the philosophy that a sidearm like a sword would be better for a 1v1 fight?

For every 20 players, your squad can have 2 cavalry and 4 archers. If the cav or archers team up with their respective "class-mates" or with their squad is up to them.

Skip arbitrary perks with arbitrary bonuses. A cavalry-man gets a horse and wide range of suitable equipment for horseback fighting, as do archers and infantry. Let the stats for individual pieces of equipment speak for themselves and let a player choose 4 shields if he wishes to do so.

Having a system built from the ground up with regards to team-play, communication, and organizing fun events is what I envisioned for Bannerlord.

My good memories of Warband: The Maldon-event in vikingr with 80 vikings vs 90 saxons. The NW-linebattles with my regiments. The "huge" army of 120 people marching towards a wooden castle that The North-faction held in PW back in 2013 (we got slaughtered, but it was so much fun that we didn't care, respawned gack back into our castle on the other side of the map). All in search of those moments in Warband where you go "wow, this is really EPIC".

For me, none of those moments were siege matches with unlimited respawns, none of them were small competitive CTF matches, they were all pretty much thrilling 1-life-battles where 100s of people got together, either organized or spontaneous, and had some pure fun.


I can't say I'm proud over this verbal diarrhea, there are probably many things that didn't make sense or were contradictory, maybe these were just really bad suggestions. Gonna post it anyway, though.

This is what my vision was for Bannerlord MP. Rant done.
 
GiipaGips said:
Rhade pretty much summed up all my thoughts in general. Excellent post. All I can do is sharing what I envisioned for Bannerlord.

What should the devs do instead of focusing on 6v6 game modes with an arbitrary upgrade system?
They should focus on what made Warband great, namely tools for players to organize themselves and make the most out of the powerful engine:

If Bannerlord can support, let's say, 400 players in a match, why not make a system where for every 20th person that joins, u have a commander with a little more decorated but equally powerful equipment? Players get automatically assigned to a squad of 20 people. Let the players have the option of using the same banner as their commander, let them be able to pick banners with their squad-logo/faction-logo. Let them skip being in a squad if they so wish.


Why not make shieldwalls a viable tactic? Let us be able to do an overhead swing with polearms behind our teammate wielding a shield, let us be able to brace spears as to counter cavalry...


Reduce strafe speed so as to force direct confrontation or a retreat where the retreating foe exposes his back. Perhaps back to Warband level where polearms still are viable in 1v1 combat. Or, I dunno, have the philosophy that a sidearm like a sword would be better for a 1v1 fight?

For every 20 players, your squad can have 2 cavalry and 4 archers. If the cav or archers team up with their respective "class-mates" or with their squad is up to them.

Skip arbitrary perks with arbitrary bonuses. A cavalry-man gets a horse and wide range of suitable equipment for horseback fighting, as do archers and infantry. Let the stats for individual pieces of equipment speak for themselves and let a player choose 4 shields if he wishes to do so.

Having a system built from the ground up with regards to team-play, communication, and organizing fun events is what I envisioned for Bannerlord.

My good memories of Warband: The Maldon-event in vikingr with 80 vikings vs 90 saxons. The NW-linebattles with my regiments. The "huge" army of 120 people marching towards a wooden castle that The North-faction held in PW back in 2013 (we got slaughtered, but it was so much fun that we didn't care, respawned gack back into our castle on the other side of the map). All in search of those moments in Warband where you go "wow, this is really EPIC".

For me, none of those moments were siege matches with unlimited respawns, none of them were small competitive CTF matches, they were all pretty much thrilling 1-life-battles where 100s of people got together, either organized or spontaneous, and had some pure fun.


I can't say I'm proud over this verbal diarrhea, there are probably many things that didn't make sense or were contradictory, maybe these were just really bad suggestions. Gonna post it anyway, though.

This is what my vision was for Bannerlord MP. Rant done.

If you are looking for a great Siege/Mod experience, you will surely find it in BL anyway.
 
It's obvious as all hell that the new system can't provide the options that the old one did, even when customised. We've been over this
Indeed. And i have explained at length that the system can be anything they want it to be. The "perks" already represent different equipment choices. Classes represent different troops - like in Warband. There is no reason why that cannot be expanded on (even all the way to an equipment selection + ability related perks).

As for the idea that totally rejecting something is a bad move, you're totally wrong.
You cite other game companies and communities. I cite my experience with this game company and community. Experience that has caused their actions, policies and maybe even development choices to shift. Not on my own, of course. But by channeling the community constructively rather than destructively.

The entire "lol just mod it" argument has been dealt with a ton of times now.
Not sure why you bring that up, but... uh, sure.

Really? You still don't get this?
Do you really think this dismissive attitude furthers your cause? I understand what you are saying, I simply disagree with your arguments or the conclusions you draw from them.

Look, matchmaking isn't a pointless thing. It has its benefits. By not giving a large scale, Battle-type mode matchmaking, you are making it way harder for such games to be played.
Server browsers have problems. That's a reason why games use MM systems in the first place. One core problem as it pertains to large capacity servers is of course that players don't want to join the empty ones. Nobody wants to play with a tenth of the amount of players there should be. The result oftentimes is that you get a few full servers, while plenty of people (probably more than enough to fill another one) are queuing up to join them.
This makes it sound like battle isn't massively popular and would die if it isn't part of MM. I disagree with that notion. I do not believe that battle requires matchmaking to be succesful and worthwhile. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't benefit from it.

Much of the community totally disagrees with "their vision". That's why people are criticising things and bringing counter-suggestions, for god's sake.
Not the point. You were talking about MM potential for Battle and vice versa. This is a response to it. Whether or not you agree with the motivation is another issue.

Are you seriously saying there isn't a huge appeal to being able to giant battles? It's pretty much what people dream of. Just think about it. You open a lobby with your mates, and the MM sends you into a big battle. You can get in and out quickly, enhancing the "pick up and play" element.
Not what I said. I am saying that it may not fit the specific overarching design, which TW may consider as most appealing for the largest possible audience. You can disagree with that, but it would be speculation. This argument also seems at odds with your concerns about the impact of MM on battle. Either it is super popular with the community and the best option for everyone or it is so reliant on MM that it needs to be a part of it. Can't have both.

As we knew them. Big battles are dead outside of planned events, precisely due to their inconvenient nature on a server browser system, which is exactly why matchmaking would be such a huge boon.
That is simply false. They are dead because the game is old, unbalanced and without support. People move on. None of the other modes have Matchmaking, so battle is on equal footing with them. Cynically speaking, MM would do little to nothing for WB Battles (at 100+ sizes) at this point, because they would simply be reconnected to the same server they just died on. Heck, now that I think about it ... wasn't there community Matchmaking for Battles for a while?

I've only said that exact thing a half a dozen times. Come on, think about it. Convenience is massively important. If Taleworlds is able to say "you can join epic battles on the fly with our MM system", that obviously is an attractive proposition. Even better is when people watch streamers as they quickly reach a new battle with absolutely no effort. I'd argue that's part of what made PUBG go viral, the simple fact that there was no need to navigate a server browser to get in those huge servers. Compare that to "you can play 6v6 competitive, like, uh, damn near everything else these days".
Why would I compare it to that, though? I can compare it to "Hey you can fight epic battles in our game!". No need to even mention MM. For me not a single modern advertisement comes to mind that tries to sell a game based off Matchmaking Convenience. They just go with generic - "Multiplayer Action", "Massive Competitions and Prizes", "Epic Fights". Similary, it was never a relevant factor in a purchase for me. It is at best a secondary or tertiary factor that boosts overall enjoyment once the game is bought and being played - which is a bonus, but not the major selling point you make it out to be.

Siege benefits from MM a lot less as it's a continuous thing, you respawn. When you get killed there's no reason to find a new game. Also, Siege benefits less from huge player numbers than Battle does. In Siege, the gameplay doesn't change much between say, 64 and 128 players. The fighting will always be spread across various isolated locations. A field Battle is the very opposite - More players directly affect the way you play and experience everything - the scale of it all is far more more impactful from a visual and gameplay perspective.
I agree, but it is doesn't change that the role of matchmaking convenience (of a single mode, no less) is negligible for marketing campaigns.

Also, by adding more modes to the matchmaking you aren't splitting anything up - you are just moving players from the browser to the matchmaking.
That's not how it works. You are both speculating that the players moved from the browser to MM make up at least 1/5th of the total MM player base and you are also assuming that no players are drawn away from other MM modes. If those 2 points do not hold up, you are splitting the MM player base further apart or at least off modes that may rely more on the MM boost than battle.
 
I suppose that the inclusion of Battle would seem like a victory and like it's time to cozy up together and set down the points being made by the disgruntled people out there. Assuredly, I'm happy about Battle still being included, however, I don't think anything was lost in translation, and there was no miscommunication, the more I think about it.

The competitive community is expected to compete in a game mode on a server list in the back of the room that no one uses while the "official matchmaking" mode is Skirmish? Is it really a logical conclusion that anyone halfway interested in competing in anything whatsoever would make their way past that big shiny "Play" button in the first place? Sure, Battle is "included" in the same way that mods are "included." They're out there if you look for them, but they aren't the official way of doing things, and the majority of people aren't going to give them the time of day. This changes little but to say that in the strict definition of the word, Battle remains inside the game's code, but the spirit of the message ultimately bares out that the alienation of the competitive community still exists due to our very clearly preferred game mode will not be used for the game's official competitive mode.

The fact still remains that we are the competitive scene, and you are introducing an official competitive mode that is not what we are happy with, even if "Battle" is on a server browser somewhere that 95% of the competitive players won't even know they should look for in the first place. The fact also remains, as well, that you are the development team and you can decide to do whatever you'd like and we can't do a damn thing about it besides talk and make noises. I've done that, and I've tried my best to stay calm and have a civil conversation; to make fair points, to try to bring our views to you in a way you'd understand and you could come to the table with us on. It's clear from Callum's responses about how these things are already decided, and the weak attempts at trying to talk about collaboration and to express a concern for our preferences flies in the face of when that actually used to be the case. A guy from nK -- Styo -- was one I used to play in Warband's original Beta with, said it best:

Styo said:
How about before you make any changes set in stone, you let us, the players test it out. Warband had MP Beta for a long time and this is why MP was popular. We the players told you what needed to be done and you listened. I remember giving feedback right to Armagan. Bring those days back. That is what made you successful. Don't be like EA and change the game for the better without proper testing.

There was no thought here of doing this. I've been telling Lust for years and years, "Hey man, we're here if you want to reach out to us and have us give feedback for Bannerlord's testing or any kind of implementation. And, if not us, we hope you go with AE or any of the other clans. Just pick a group and use our knowledge, use what we have here when you're building the next game."

Clearly that wasn't listened to.

I'll respond to a few points that jumped out at me, but honestly, I'm pretty convinced at this point that my efforts here are being wasted, and that I should spend my time doing things that are actually productive. From the tone of these responses, it's clear that the only interest from the other side is to appear sympathetic, but ultimately, the subliminal message is that they're going to whatever they like, and we can deal with it.

Count Delinard said:
What many people are maybe failing to see is that what you know as "battle mode" will still be there, just not in Match-Making but through custom servers. We didn't have MM in warband and you used to access Battle mode servers through the server browser. It will be the same here, in case you want to play that mode just open the server browser and join in, no major changes!

And as Duh said, the perks + classes are somehow not so different from what we had in warband, since your choices were pre-defined anyway.

This is not a comparison done in good faith. You seem to think that because you used a server browser in Warband to access a Battle server, and because you use a server browser in Bannerlord to access a Battle server, that it's a direct comparison. It isn't.

Bannerlord, as stated, will have a matchmaking system. This represents the main point of contact for any kind of competitive player. The absence of an "official" matchmaking system in Bannerlord then set all game types as potential candidates, and the community decided that Battle was best, and we refined it over almost a decade. Am I glad Battle may be an option? Sure. But it's still sitting on the back of a server list that most people are going to need to know exists in the first place, and most people aren't going to make their way to the server browser to manually look for an unheard of "Battle" game type when the UI leads competitive players directly to Skirmish when they hit "Play." Players won't know what they don't know, they'll simply assume Mount & Blade: Bannerlord's competitive game mode is Skirmish, because TaleWorlds has deemed it so, even if the already existing competitive scene completely disagrees, because TaleWorlds knows better than we do.

I read through the first 2-3 pages and saw you, Callum, trying to make half-amends and weak reaches for understanding. I can't go through and reply to every single one, but allow me to reply to a few here. Also, let me remind you when you and I sat down on Bladecast's Round Table, and you guaranteed me that you guys would be doing more to reach out to the community, promised that you'd be looking into certain topics -- I never saw any return whatsoever on those things. So, forgive me if I'm skeptical when you say things to the effect of you actually valuing community feedback with any real intention of applying it in a meaningful way.

Callum_TaleWorlds said:
Most of you saw the PM I sent saying that there will be no Battle mode in the same way as it was in Warband. While this is in part true, it appears to be completely misleading, so please allow me to clarify the situation.

There will be no single-life game mode in matchmaking, but there will be one for custom games (among other game modes, such as Team Deathmatch). The final design for this game mode isn't set in stone yet so you shouldn't expect to see a Battle mode which is identical to the one we have in Warband. Naturally, we will take community input on these matters into account as we strive to create an experience that is enjoyable for our fans. We also have an extensive list of server settings, so you should be able to customise any of our game modes to suit your needs (playercount, gold amounts etc.). If any of the custom modes turn out to be the game mode that clans want to use in tournaments or which our event organisers want to use for events (such as line battles), then we will work to support them with that when the time comes.

The item system from Warband has now been changed to a class-based system, with a perk list to customise your character (such as access to different weapons or better armour). This is the system we will be using across all of our multiplayer game modes. The reasons for this change are: to help with the general balance of the game (between units and teams); to prevent snowballing; to make multiplayer accessible to a wider ranger of players; and to provide a system where players can know what to expect when playing as or against each different type of unit (and develop strategies and tactics based on this). I will also note that there still are a significant range of options across the classes and perks – which may be expanded upon based on community feedback and testing results.

We want to make it clear that our aim is not to alienate our existing playerbase through our efforts to attract new players to the game. We will always listen to your feedback and try to work with you to create a game which you will enjoy playing for years to come. But, with that being said, we also have our own thoughts and ideas that we would like to put out there and we are confident that game modes like Skirmish will be well received if you are willing to give them a chance.

On the one hand, you value community feedback, but on the other hand, you say "There will be no single-life game mode in matchmaking," despite the vast majority of players decrying this decision very loudly, almost in unison. Your constant response is "Trust us, it'll provide all these great levels of tactical decisions, and I have 1k hours so I know what I'm talking about!" I have nearly 2500 on my own, since Warband's beta. I'm sure the guys in AE, wK, Balion, TMW, or any major group, have massive amounts more, and when most of those people are telling you that you're making a very poor design decision that goes against the spirit of what we've come to enjoy, we should just accept you know best? More lives brings more tactical complexities than it removes? How many elite level teams have you or your random developers called for? Let's not kid ourselves, any mode besides the "official" mode is going to be a redheaded stepchild in all but name, for reasons I've already outlined, so at this point, it's almost superfluous for me to sit here and try to save Battle as it's evident it will simply be presented to us as a competitive afterthought. I quote you here as your aim being not to alienating your existing playerbase, but your accuracy here is worse than a Nord crossbowman, and that's being generous.

Classes and Perks belong in Call of Duty, not Mount & Blade, as customization was always a massive draw. BkS employed Coursers where TMW decided to bring Hunters, so we'll have the speed edge where they'll have the ability to handle more damage. We preferred heavy lances to Great Lances, which led to a reliance on Javelins when we had to face off against Swadians. It was a personal taste and tactics decision made depending on what faction, what map, and what clan you were playing against. We don't take helms because we're sexy and our swag levels are too high, and even while that sounds silly and superfluous, it was our conscious decision to taunt, incense, and save money at the same time. It was a choice. You are completely removing one of those considerations, but all you're going to do is list the positives about the change? No, let's talk about the negatives too, and you're cutting out a massive layer of tactical depth that you seem to prize when you're talking about other features.  You can have all the reasons in the world, but you're still taking away choice. You are closing down the store and telling us to pick from one of 4-5 baskets pre-selected for us. I don't like the itemization changes at all, but if I have to list my grievances in order of severity, nothing outranks the choice of single-life-spawns.


Duh said:
I have said this elsewhere, but I will repeat it as I believe it to be true and relevant - IF the range of available classes and perks is extensive and meaningful, the new system represents a relatively small change for experienced and competitive players. The current Warband system still boils down to a list of presets (there is a limited number of predetermined equipment choices and combinations) - Bannerlord would simply guide new players to viable archetypes. Especially if classes and perks will be fine-tuned and expanded with player feedback taken into account, there is little to no loss for Veterans as it only means that the Archetypes (combinations of items) that they enjoy and are viable and balanced will be built into the UI while dead weight is reduced.

I can play the "if" game too. *IF* there were new official maps released, *IF* there were new weapons or factions released from time to time, *IF* there were fresh content introduced to shake up the meta, *IF* the gold costs and usage stats were monitored and modified through patches in an attempt to balance in an ongoing manner, then choices allow for an ever-evolving meta to happen. Look at Starcraft, look at League of Legends; if Bannerlord wants to be this amazing competitive scene, then stop and do your homework. The metas of those two games are ever-changing, ever-evolving, because players are allowed to have choice, and the players respond to changes in the system by making different decisions. You don't see players being pigeonholed in an attempt to foster competitive play or tactical choices. That is the opposite of the model being used here, and I think between our two "if" scenarios, I'd put my money on Riot and Blizzard. Again, we are saying "if" quite a bit here, so let's cut the difference and arrive at the middle point and say that, most likely, the implementation will be moderately okay, and this will lead to very little variation being seen with very little reason to shift anything around.

Callum_TaleWorlds said:
We have decided to limit how many modes we have in matchmaking to prevent splitting the playerbase up too much. We think that our current lineup of game modes for MM will offer something for everyone.

I thought we were having a conversation? I thought you guys were open to community input? But, somehow, the decision is already made, and Battle will be relegated to a back wall where the weird kids hang out? You don't want to split the playerbase up, but you're basically sending your old community to a server browser while you're bringing in new people and telling them to push the "Play" button on the front page that will matchmake them into Skirmish while we, in the meantime, hit the "Browse Servers" button and find one manually to play on servers and in modes that the general public aren't really too aware exist in the first place? I'm not attempting to be difficult here, I'm actually just saying what you're not saying and what you're trying to avoid, and the more I see you avoiding the hard topics and the cold truths, the more I'm inclined to call them out. It's making it worse that you are just telling me that this car you're building, it has rockets on it, it has missiles and a microwave and all kinds of cool things, when I'm sitting here telling you that the tires are missing. The tires. Look at them. They're not there. Please stop making me point out the obvious by ignoring it and telling me about other things. You're alienating your competitive community, so my advice here is to take ours and make some modifications to Skirmish, and change the tone of "the decision has been made" to "hey, let's sit down and talk about how we can improve this."

Ultimately, as I said before in my other quite-long post, you are not For Honor, you are not DOTA, you are not anything other than Mount & Blade. Grow, evolve, expand, but stop trying to be something you're not, and stop alienating your community.

#nobattlenobks
 
I would like to say that I look forward to trying these new modes. I always hated battle mode because I, like most other people who play M&B, did not enjoy the competitive scene. The way duels and small team battles played out just always hurt my eyes and didnt seem to fit how M&B is played.

The competitive scene is the smallest in M&B but also the most vocal, as we can see by the amount in these forums compared to the relative size of the singleplayer and multiplayer playerbases. I feel bad that you guys are not having your battle mode welcomed into the matchmaking service, but its not as if you wont be able to play it. It will be better!

Give the new modes a try at least. If you go into Bannerlord all upset and spiteful you will likely not enjoy it as much as you could if you go in with no bias.

And thank you to Callum for being so active and addressing concerns lately!
 
vicwiz007 said:
The competitive scene is the smallest in M&B but also the most vocal, as we can see by the amount in these forums compared to the relative size of the singleplayer and multiplayer playerbases. I feel bad that you guys are not having your battle mode welcomed into the matchmaking service, but its not as if you wont be able to play it. It will be better!

Oh? Interesting, because the multiplayer scene is by far the largest demographic in the PC gaming industry these days, so you'd actually be incorrect and out of context by saying that singleplayer somehow "matters more," yet I'd never make that point about multiplayer "mattering more" because I'm not that kind of person. It's unfortunate I had to bring it up here as I think it's kind of pointless and petty to try and talk about which one is somehow "more important."

As far as trying Skirmish mode, we would have loved to. Because, had we done so, we could have had the conversation with the development team quietly, and some very small changes could have been made, and we all would have profited from it, while they scored a massive win for community relations. Instead, we won't get the chance to "try the new modes" before the game is virtually done and decided, and by that point, if it is poorly designed or poorly executed -- or simply inferior to what we had set up -- then it's too late at that point. That's the issue here.

#nobattlenobks
 
I hope you'll be able to shed some more light on the new systems soon, Callum. I am personally not a fan of the way the multiplayer news so far has focused on 6 vs 6 matches, as in my eyes that does not fit the style Warband had going for it. If players want smaller, more skill-based matches, there's AAA titles for that, like For Glory (if that still lives). Mount & Blade should in my opinion be about the bigger fights: the battles, the sieges (, the invasions :wink:).

If you could give us a clear example of how the new systems will work in a future dev blog that would be helpful. I'm not passing judgement it yet as there's not much info out there, but I was hoping for multiplayer to be more in line with Warband.
 
Really nice post again, Rhade. This is how you make a strong case and create input that can cause change, people.

I can play the "if" game too. *IF* there were new official maps released, *IF* there were new weapons or factions released from time to time, *IF* there were fresh content introduced to shake up the meta, *IF* the gold costs and usage stats were monitored and modified through patches in an attempt to balance in an ongoing manner, then choices allow for an ever-evolving meta to happen. Look at Starcraft, look at League of Legends; if Bannerlord wants to be this amazing competitive scene, then stop and do your homework. The metas of those two games are ever-changing, ever-evolving, because players are allowed to have choice, and the players respond to changes in the system by making different decisions. You don't see players being pigeonholed in an attempt to foster competitive play or tactical choices. That is the opposite of the model being used here, and I think between our two "if" scenarios, I'd put my money on Riot and Blizzard. Again, we are saying "if" quite a bit here, so let's cut the difference and arrive at the middle point and say that, most likely, the implementation will be moderately okay, and this will lead to very little variation being seen with very little reason to shift anything around.
Let's put it a different way then. I don't think they will rip out their current system and start over completely. Which leaves us with 2 options, both of which I tried to discuss in the topic. The first one is the advocation of complexity and choice in the system that exists - all the way to a combination of equipment + perk choices. The second option is the advocation of server owner choice. I.e. their ability to remove or reduce the constraints or utilize a warband-esque system WITHOUT the necessity for players to download any additional files. I don't think either path will be easy to walk or universally satisfactory, but they seem to be the most viable ones at this point.

Edith: One thing I am curious about is whether you are advocating for the inclusion of both the casual massive battles and competitive battles in match making or only the latter.

HKP said:
someone give rhade a medal or something
I would, but he already has a custom title :razz:
 
It's hard to know exactly what your plans are so correct any assumptions... I suggest you do not over use your matchmaking system. In my opinion matchmaking should only be used for your competitive game mode and nothing else. Implementing matchmaking and having "official servers" on game modes such as siege and conquest may kill any sense of community and stifle player created content. These game modes require constant admin work and map additions to remain vibrant. There is so much dedication and creativity within the multiplayer administrative, modding, and mapping community which has allowed it to thrive for so long. Let the community manage all the non-competitive game modes as they are the only ones who will do it justice year, after year, after year. The only change I believe Bannerlord multiplayer needs from Warband is the ability to download custom modules by simply joining the server. Bannerlord has the potential to have a huge custom-game scene like Warcraft 3 which so many people remember fondly and played for years and years.

Involve the competitive community in testing as early as possible, and take feedback on the game mode and class system seriously. This is the only way you can get it right. Consider 7v7 or 8v8 as well. Ask almost any competitive player if they prefer smaller team sizes and see what they say..
 
I agree with Rhade on most of his points, but I feel like he over emphasizes how necessary battle is for its success. Quite frankly, I think battle is a flawed game mode. The idea of battle was two teams duking it out in single life combat. Over the years, this turned into a battle over the flag, which in essence is not battle. As such, making a game mode like skirmish would not turn me off; battling over objectives sounds like a good direction. The key point that turns me off, is the re spawns.



Also, let's have a look at the most successful e-sports from https://www.esportsearnings.com/games:

League of Legends: give you the option to make a rune page, level abilities in different orders, pick 6 items out of a large amount of items.
Dota 2: similar as above
Heroes of the Storm: similar as above
CS:GO : Allows you to pick a load out from a wide array of weapons.
Starcraft 2: is an rts, so has an infinite amount of strategy variations.

They all have in common that the developers only occasionally, if at all, try to force the player into presets. In general though, they give the players the tools to find a tactic that works better than others and then adjust it if it is too strong.

The first e-sport that uses presets and/or perks on this list is Overwatch at 10th place. Overwatch is an incredibly high profile game, made by one of the most experienced esports game developer (Blizzard) and it's still only 10th.

Warband has set up a fantastic customization system, you've improved on it in Bannerlord, so cutting it out to prevent snow balling sounds like backwards priorities.
 
Callum_TaleWorlds said:
you should be able to customise any of our game modes to suit your needs (playercount, gold amounts etc.)

The item system from Warband has now been changed to a class-based system, with a perk list to customise your character (such as access to different weapons or better armour). This is the system we will be using across all of our multiplayer game modes.

Callum_TaleWorlds said:
MaHuD said:
These perks are unlocks, right?
You have access to all of the perks of a class when you pick that class.

How does the "gold amounts" effect the perk system? It seems that there is no progression in multiplayer anymore, as "You have access to all of the perks of a class when you pick that class."
 
Back
Top Bottom