• If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
  • If you are posting MP feedback without an actual suggestion, please head over to The Fields of Valour - Multiplayer section and its subsections.
  • Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Multiplayer is not as fun as in Warband

Users who are viewing this thread


Do you guys enjoy multiplayer? I'm actually starting to loose interest in playing (and as far as I can see, playerbase is shrinking rapidly). From my point of view, bad design decisions resulted in taking away a lot of what was so good about multiplayer in warband. Here is why:*

Fighting is chaotic and non-responsive. Blocking is hard, and attacks have delay on release, which makes it impossible to wait for an opening and land a hit. This is a serious issue, as right timing is a crucial element of combat. Current implementation is super frustrating. Also other gameplay mechanics are poorly implemented. Horses are spamming as crazy in sieges, bumping onto everyone and being almost impossible to stop (thrusting has such a delay that timing it right is a challenge, unless you have super-low ping). There is no friendly fire in TDM and siege, so groups of palyers just gang-up on single enemies, swinging blindly, trying to steal a frag.

Also, there is an automatic aim correction for ranged weapons (in third person view). WTF! It turns all archers into op snipers, able to take down their targets from half a map away. This makes all two-handed weapon wielding units useless in sieges as they don't get an option to spawn with even basic shields that could protect them on the way to castle walls.

The class system is a bad design choice on it's own. Currently it is poorly balanced, which takes a lot of the fun away of the game. Why I can equip shock troops with both two handed weapon and a one-handed sidearm if I can't give them shields? What would be the point of using 1h sword if I have a freaking-huge badass-battleaxe? This is redundant. Or legionnaries - I can give them both one-handed swords and one-handed axe. What's the point? If i choose to take an axe I would probably not use the sword even once, might just throw it away right after spawn. There are more examples like these. In general, classes and perks are poorly implemented and need a major overhaul.

But the worst thing about the class system is the fact that it forces players to use trash-units that can barely deal any damage and aren't fun to play at all! Think about it, your team is loosing the siege defense, quite a lot of men died at a short time - bam! Now you can all spawn as peasant/recruit only, unless you get some kills. At that point the siege is already lost, as enemies are taking flag after flag, slashing through poorly equipped defenders. Srsly, how an army of peasants should be able to defeat badass veteran infantry (attackers keep killing peasant defenders, so they can still afford good equipment after they die)?

Oh, and servers tend to crash once every two or three games. What a fun to wait fifteen minutes to join the siege just to see server crashing after a while. With the amount of players at this point, matchmaking is not cool at all, especially for siege..

I play mostly seige and TDM, and don't find new gamemodes much entertaining (although it's just a matter of personal preference, as some peaole might have fun in Cptn battle and skirmish). Captain battle has a potential, but it kind of lacks more strategic approach - e.g. it is very frustrating that I can't tell my unit to attack a certain enemy unit. And it's hard to both fight and command, so I don't really take much part in combat. All of this makes battles quite cumbersome. TBH, at this moment I don't really see the point in playing captain battle, when I can play Total War instead nad enjoy much more complex strategies :/ I totally miss the normal one-life battle from warband. It was an unique experience, as having one life made people behave differently - more cautious, less berserk.

Don't get me wrong - the game has a great potential. Sieges are super-exciting with all the artillery fire, defending choke-points, flags to capture. It is far more demanding than in native warband and wining a siege fells more satisfying. The game could be so much better than warband, but the poorly-designed core gameplay mechanics make Bannerlord multiplayer more frustrating than enjoyable.

*This is my personal opinion. based on recent in-game experience. You have a full right to disagree, just as I have a right to express my disappointment. I know that game is in EA stage, but AFAIK there was a closed-alpha for multuiplayer a while ago, and not much have changed since than, despite many complains from warband-veterans. So I don't really believe that Talewords is willing to remodel core gameplay mechanics that could improve Bannerlord MP experience. Though, I still hope that they will.


Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight

The raw reality...
Don't worry guys it's EA they're working intensely on the next big patch which is sure to fix a rare crash or two which you've never even knew existed and fix the whole game!
Last edited:


Sergeant Knight
The multiplayer would be quite fun to play, if it wasn't so damn unstable and if the combat system would work properly. Seriously, at the end of beta, it was allmost perfect for me. I didn't play it for over 200h for no reason. They only needed to add more game modes and functions, like reporting and friendship request (what they now do) but they played around with the stability and now it seems to be broken. The drop of players is caused by that in my opinion. You just can't play a multiplayer game with constant fps drops, bugs, lagging, server crashes and the absolute core mechanic, the combat system, not working properly.


TBH I could live with the class system (although the lower tier classes are not fun at all) and I could get used to combat meachanics. But what I can't stand is contatntly getting shot from half the map away, and constantly being harassed by literally hordes of enemy horsemen. I mean, the castles in sieges are horribly designed. The layout of the castle should prevent horsemen from getting further beyond the main gate (they should just elevate the area and use staircases or sth). Otherwise it just unplayable on some maps. And for the archers the solution is as simple as disabling vertical aim correction in multiplayer. I seriously can't understand what were they thinking with that? Melee combat is demanding, requires both skill and at least basic understanding of game mechanics. It takes a lot od hours to master. But what the hell, you can than switch to an archer and it's just about pointing a crosshair and- click -you've got another kill. Talewords, please make them at least think about the arrow trajectory!

BTW I've just launched a multiplayer, played for like 15 minutes and then game crashed. I've verified files by Steam and it appears I have to download > 2 GB of data. WTF Talewords? It happens to me 2nd time this week.


Didn't put many hours into MP yet.

My own impression: timing issues. Lots of timing issues. MP combat doesn't feel remotely close to SP combat. Whatever tricks and skills you've learned in SP won't work in MP anymore. Combat feels somewhat unresponsive, timing is off for animations and hit reactions. For instance: you see an incoming heavy axe animation and raise your shield you're propably too late since the server still considers your shield as lowered and the axe connects with your body -> dead.

Javelins have a different trajectory and so have arrows and bolts. MP combat simply feels so different from SP combat one could say you should only play either MP or SP, you can't be good in both.


i played one duel server match when bannerlord came out, saw how bad block delay was and never played multiplayer again


Sergeant Knight
We often argue on the forum about this when realistically there are two sides of the same coin;

Either you believe that bannerlord isn't as good as warband and chances are it never will be.


Bannerlord isn't as good as Warband right now - but there is slow progress in the right direction. Chances are eventually it will be.

As much as we fight this is basically just being a pessimist or an optimist about the project; these aren't opposite opinions but we often treat them as such. Everyone here mostly agrees on the changes that need to happen - just maybe not on the priority each should have.
Top Bottom