[multiplayer] You call 1.143 patch "balanced" ?

[Leaffordes]

Nerfing Miquelet would only make Cossacks even worse and they suck already; they've actually become worse than the Crimeans now. The trouble with Swedish musketeers is not Miquelets, but the insane shooting skills the musketeer class has.

Yup, that's why they should increase the Cossack firearm skills to ~150-160.

The Swedish musketeers are bad athletics, they have the lowest ironflesh skills and they totally suck at meele fighting..
Don't you think they're worthy the crown in firearm skills? I mean if they're still dominating it's very clearly to me, the firearms are way too overpowered..

 

[wildyracing]

In the real life, when firearms changes sword warfare, they were overpowered too. So sorry, this is how it is. If you don't like firearms, please don't beg the developers to lower their stats just because they are better than bows or swords. That is how it was in the real history, so today we fight with rifles instead of bows. You can do just like me - play Warband

 

[Leaffordes]

In the real life, when firearms changes sword warfare, they were overpowered too. So sorry, this is how it is. If you don't like firearms, please don't beg the developers to lower their stats just because they are better than bows or swords. That is how it was in the real history, so today we fight with rifles instead of bows. You can do just like me - play Warband

For gods sake, this is a game it's meant to be a fun experience not a history lesson. If this was real life though, muskets would jam a lot and the reloading speed would be annoying high. The thing is, Taleworlds created a wonderful meeling system (the best there is for the moment), and it's sad to see its being wasted a lot because of the 95% mp guys camping all the time.

Also, I'm not playing as infantry myself but musketeer, I've always played with musketeer this is when I can say that it's too easy for the Swedish team only cause they rely much on their musketeers, a nerf to it would cause more balanced teams.

 

[Naresh]

I'll jump in and post my thoughts...

In .42 I played as the cossacks a fair bit, especially in Co-Op, the rifleman (the guy with pistols...) is fast, fast helps, I generally fight with a mace, 2 pistols and bullets, using guerilla tactics rather than actual "staying power"

I find myself playing 2 player Co-Op a lot, with a musketeer, he generally dies first due to wanting to stay in the open and take pot shots.

I've played Sweden, and though they are my favourite nation, they are SLOW, for Co-Op it is far too impractical.

My suggestions:
Rename the Cossack classes, having Infantry as the ranged unit, and rifleman as the more melee based class can be confusing.
Cossacks need a tad boost in Firearms prof. Maybe melee too, I know my estimate is conservative compared to the others, but maybe 140-145?


On a personal note, I'd like to see a few more upgrades for people in Co Op mode, it's my favourite part of WFaS, and almost the only reason I come back to it (I've completed a fair few of the main story missions, and I've had my fill of M&B for now).
More customisation for Co Op would be much appreciated, having all your weapons unlocked by wave 3 makes you feel a tad redundant by the time everyone is raving about their shiny new muskets. Maybe an armour for musketeers for later waves, gloves for the Cossack Infantry. Wave 5/8 weapons for the other classes.

I know in standard MP this could be over powered, but in Co Op, I feel it would increase enjoyment and overall number of players.

Another idea, though it probably isn't possible is the idea of picking up new skills in the middle of fights, every 3 waves possibly have a choice in a rank in Iron Flesh, Power Strike, Athletics, Riding or Mounted Shooting.

On a side note, anyone have tips for dealing with mobs of spearmen? I find myself getting ganged up on by even basic spearmen, and it's hard to counter them.

Oh, and pathfinding needs to be improved, all too often men get stuck in walls or spend ages running into walls instead of going around. And how come the enemies troops in Co Op always seem so much better than the heroes men?

 

[wildyracing]

Ok, i got your point. But for me it is annoying to shoot with best musket somebody without any armor and he to not die. Not even to be knocked down. It is a game after all, but it is definatelly not fun for me that way. That is why i don't play multiplayer.

P.S. i think knock down effect should be a little often with heavy weapons and muskets. It was implemented in warband, but it happened really rare (don't count horse stomping). Both fire and sword and warband will benefit gameplay if there was a bit more knockdown. In that way, i am a little more prone for less firearm efficiency.

 

[Ans99]

and now ... something completely different.

RalliX wrote about the "functional moving pavises/mantlets during sieges.(...)They would be balanced by being able to be destroyed by melee weaponry. It is reaaally painful to have rushed halfway across the map after respawning"
I thing this is great idea.

If you now wandering how it works ... look at this.

隐藏

Screens come from WFaS Warband Mod

 

[Majestic7]

Yup, that's why they should increase the Cossack firearm skills to ~150-160.

The Swedish musketeers are bad athletics, they have the lowest ironflesh skills and they totally suck at meele fighting..
Don't you think they're worthy the crown in firearm skills? I mean if they're still dominating it's very clearly to me, the firearms are way too overpowered..

Bad athletics and sucky melee make little difference. Most musketeers die when they are attacked by cavalry or infantry up close (actual musketeers with a musket, not pistoleros). Usually they don't even get the chance to switch to melee. Having high firearms skill means you don't get attacked up close, because you shoot the approaching dude dead before that. Unless he comes from behind or the like, then you are dead anyway. So no, they are not worthy of so much higher firearms skill compared to, say, Poles AND the best guns.

Like I've said, Sweden can be beaten. I never play Sweden anymore and I (almost) always get more kills than deaths in massive sieges against them. Sweden doesn't dominate because of awesome musketeers. They dominate because of best musketeers AND best infantry. If they had just one of those two, they'd be fine. Firearms are fine as it is; if they can't reliably kill unarmored guys with one shot at short range, they lose all purpose.

Ans99, that looks nice. They just need to move really slow.

edit- Oh and I find it a little silly Swedes are the most specialized army in WFaS. I mean, historically, the army of Gustav II Adolph was know for cross-trained soldiers. They were flexible and could perform in multiple roles when needed, in stark contrast to their very rigidly trained German counterparts. Surely all that wasn't already lost and even totally reversed by the time of Cossack rebellion?

 

[Leaffordes]

Yup, that's why they should increase the Cossack firearm skills to ~150-160.

The Swedish musketeers are bad athletics, they have the lowest ironflesh skills and they totally suck at meele fighting..
Don't you think they're worthy the crown in firearm skills? I mean if they're still dominating it's very clearly to me, the firearms are way too overpowered..

Bad athletics and sucky melee make little difference. Most musketeers die when they are attacked by cavalry or infantry up close (actual musketeers with a musket, not pistoleros). Usually they don't even get the chance to switch to melee. Having high firearms skill means you don't get attacked up close, because you shoot the approaching dude dead before that. Unless he comes from behind or the like, then you are dead anyway. So no, they are not worthy of so much higher firearms skill compared to, say, Poles AND the best guns.


Like I've said, Sweden can be beaten. I never play Sweden anymore and I (almost) always get more kills than deaths in massive sieges against them. Sweden doesn't dominate because of awesome musketeers. They dominate because of best musketeers AND best infantry. Firearms are fine as it is; if they can't reliably kill unarmored guys with one shot at short range, they lose all purpose.

I didn't say they were worthy a huge advantage in firearms but being the best in it, and they are now. But the main problem is that the firearms are way too powerful, I indeed think that the firearms should be the main curse of the battle but having such a advantage using them now in the game is crazy, the balancing gets mostly akward over the lines.

And no, being worst in 3 skills (Ironflesh, Athletics and Swordfighting) do effect a lot in the battle. They mostly die of one bullet now, they're not good at outrunning infantry or rechanging positions and with that means they'll more easily get into meele combats, and what chances do they got there? Just think of sieges.


I don't know if they're really dominating in sieges now, their musketeers are very bad at fighting and has very low ironflesh as told, the infantry is still very good tho that's why it should be nerfed a bit like me and many others have said. But the main question of why they're dominating in none sieges are cuase they're playing a huge leading role in the game, that is their musketeers, the advantage gets that huge only cause everything is relying on the firearms now, that's why it should be nerfed. And as I said earlier, I wanted a nerf to the accuracy and how fast bullets are travelling, not the damage itself. And you should really play them before judging.

 

[Majestic7]

I used to play Swedes. I stopped playing them, because it was too easy. I play mainly on those big siege servers, so I certainly know what I'm talking about. Swedes are the most popular team, because they are the strongest. Like I said, it is not the musketeers, it is the combination of best musketeers and best infantry. Their infantry gets thick armor, big weapons and lots of hitpoints. So they make a very good meat shield to the musketeers. If Swedes had worse infantry or musketeers, I think they'd be fine; the combination of the two is what makes them so hot. I died less as a Swedish musketeer anyway than as a Polish musketeer. Muscovites get those big axes, but Swedes and Poles are short in melee; I didn't die as often as the Swede because I'd kill the attackers before they'd get to me. I tried this a few times after the patch and the same seems to be still true.

 

[Leaffordes]

Then I think we can agree on that the Swedish infantry should be nerfed :p

I'm a Swede, I'm playing as Sweden and I hate when matches are too easy cause of their opness, I want them to be nerfed.

 

[Majestic7]

Yeah, when fighting Swedes, I fear their armored infantry more than musketeers. They usually take two or three musket balls to drop at least after all.

Well I'm a Finn, too bad they don't have Hakkapeliitta with Swedes.

 

[Kerc]

Please consider reverting the changes done to the swede bladed weapons during the first 'firearms rebalance' patch as it plus the changes to muskets and now their firearms skill relative to everyoen else has left swedes in a position of sheer dominance.

At release swedes had a serious disadvantage which was that their only effective weapons Vs. other heavy armour infantry was their halbreds and pikes while their claymores, broadswords etc were utterly useless against plate or mirror armour. This was a good tradeoff for their vastly superior musketeers. But now they have their heavy armour, their two handed swords can one hit full plated enemies and their miquelet muskets are able to do the same with their incredibly high accuracy, damage and speed.

While I can see the idea behind the swedes being slow and heavy as their disadvantage, it really isn't much of one on most if not all the official maps and is especially not a disadvantage on any of the siege maps - which swedes excel at both the defending and attacking role.

IMO swedes can be fixed with two things - one, nerf miqulet musket damage to that similar to the good musket but maintain the accuracy and(or slightly lower the accuracy) their reload speed. Make them faster firing muskets but not just 100% better in everway.
Second thing, nerf the swedish bladed weapons(or bladed weapons in general) so they're less effective against other heavy infantry

 

[Wheem]

The trouble with Swedish musketeers is not Miquelets, but the insane shooting skills the musketeer class has.

I beg to differ - the Miqulet Musket is very accurate, regardless of who uses it. The accuracy difference between playing Sweden with a Miqulet and playing the Cossacks with a Miqulet is so small that I don't even really notice it. I do, however, notice an enormous difference in accuracy when playing a Polish Musketeer and picking up a Miqulet off a dead enemy.

The weapon proficiency differences between the nations really do seem quite negligible in practice; it's the Miqulet Musket that's a real game changer. And personally, I think they either need a fairly substantial nerf, or total removal from multiplayer. The combination of damage, accuracy, and price makes them way too good. I don't know that I've ever survived a Miqulet hit that wasn't at really extreme range (though I don't play plate-infantry), and even then you're usually left with only a tiny amount of health.

Sweden's infantry is probably a little overpowered as well, but I think a lot of that could be countered simply by giving Poland, Crimea, and the Cossacks access to comparable 2h weapons and similar proficiency to Sweden and Muscovy. Fighting spammers when your lightweight (and/or short reach) 1h weapon frequently suffers from bad block delays is pretty tough, especially when you factor in the amount of glancing blows that are common against their armor.

 

[Noudelle]

yes. i call 1.4.3 balanced

 

[Naresh]

I think MP (particularly co op) would benefit from having a few crazy priced items, like... 4000 for a sword, a sword with modifiers, a heavy, balanced Claymore or the like. Only available in Veteran waves.

I managed to get to wave 8 of Vet last night, playing as Crimeans, their bows are hugely impressive, combined with mobility of a horse...
We had one man "sniping" with a bow from foot, he held his own.

I was on horse with a bow and killed over 180 men up to wave 8 Vet. I managed to get 12 headshots in a row against swedish swordsmen

EDIT: I actually made it to Elite wave 8 today, again in 2 player co op. Crimeans, half way through veteran I changed to lancer (from HA) and it lasted right up until end game, when a murza chambul got a lucky swing before I lanced him...

 

[DanAngleland]

I still don't see this supposed Swedish dominance in multiplayer. I have just finished playing 5 or 6 matches of team deathmatch, with teams and maps chosen by the AI (match ends, new map and teams loaded, no polls succeed in changing). Sweden was present at least 4 times, and I don't think they won once. I played for and against them, and while at least two games were very close, two more games saw the Swedes struggle a great deal. Both these hard games were against the Crimean Khanate, where the horse archery was a big pain for us. The only way I, as a Swede, could be effective was to be an infantryman with a long pike. The musketry was less effective, though of course it helps to have some. Whenever I face Swedes, though they may have better musketmen, the thing that is always at the back of my mind is their heavy infantry, with their large swords and good armour; this is much more significant than their superior firing/guns. I would like to know what game mode it is where the Swedes are so over powered, because it isn't team deathmatch or capture the flag, and I don't remember them being dominant in siege games either. I haven't played battle very much, so I can't speak about that, but I can't imagine the difference is so very great.

I don't mind which faction I play for. The people I have seen writing about how over powered the Swedes are sometimes mention that the people defending Swedes must always play for them and want to keep their advantage. I wonder if these players ever play for Sweden? They may change their mind about how strong they are. Another thing to bear in mind is that players who find Sweden difficult to face may be trying to beat the Swedes at their own game, and hoping to stay in the open and shoot it out with them, rather than playing to the strengths of their own faction. Also these people say Sweden is more popular among players than other factions. If Swedes are chosen more often than other factions, it is probably because they are the most unique in style (inevitably, since they are the most 'western' army) and distinctive in appearance, which means one can turn off the team identification graphics (the flags above the heads) safely. Those are the reasons I like to see them, though I enjoy a variety.

 

[jackx]

It's about potential - the better you are at the game, and at cooperating, the more you stand to gain from a faction with highly specialized experts, because those complement each other and (partially) negate each others' weaknesses.
Random players (like myself) don't fare better as Sweden than with other factions because we perform poorly to begin with, and a good musket or an awesome 2hander isn't going to compensate for lack of aim, or melee skill.

Kinda like low-recoil low-accuracy guns vs high-recoil-high-accuracy guns in a FPS... the latter gets better the better the player, the former hits a performance ceiling that no level of player skill can break, no mater how good their aim or recoil control.

 

[Zbyh]

I still don't see this supposed Swedish dominance in multiplayer. I have just finished playing 5 or 6 matches of team deathmatch...

You shouldn't really talk about balance in modes like Team Deathmatch. In my opinion you can't check balance even in Siege. I remember Siege games, when I took enemy flag alone and score point - is that mean my char is overpowered, or just I was lucky that defenders didn't noticed me ? I would like to say Siege is "team tactics" based, but it isn't. How many times I saw just few defenders left, and 10 times more attackers. And what attackers did ? They were camping roofs/walls/towers instead of taking the flag. So how pure score can show you balance in this mode ?

If you want to check balance, the best mode is Battle. New players (weaker players) in battle dies in first 1-2 minutes, and then you have real battle. If you die, that's all, you need to wait another round. So there are no stupid respawns in the middle of enemy group (like deathmatch-based modes has), there is no huge confusion, because no one will respawn at your back to kill you from few meters. You can focus on your enemies and take them one by one. Because of this, weak players prefers other game modes, and they are getting bored of Battle very quickly. So in Battle you will probably see very good players, new players will 'play' (mostly wait) 1-2 battles and change to Deathmatch or something.

If you want to compare specific units the great mode is duel. But you need a friend with similar skill to yours. Then you can test whatever you want to, and the results will be accurate.

Another thing is to... play everything. Again, try play every unit in Battle mode. You have 1 life, there is huge risk to die, try every musketeer class and check how easly you feel to kill enemies, then try every infantry and check which one is the best. You will get great view about overall balance in game.

 

[DanAngleland]

I still don't see this supposed Swedish dominance in multiplayer. I have just finished playing 5 or 6 matches of team deathmatch...

If you want to check balance, the best mode is Battle. New players (weaker players) in battle dies in first 1-2 minutes, and then you have real battle. If you die, that's all, you need to wait another round. So there are no stupid respawns in the middle of enemy group (like deathmatch-based modes has), there is no huge confusion, because no one will respawn at your back to kill you from few meters. You can focus on your enemies and take them one by one. Because of this, weak players prefers other game modes, and they are getting bored of Battle very quickly. So in Battle you will probably see very good players, new players will 'play' (mostly wait) 1-2 battles and change to Deathmatch or something.

I don't see why battle should be taken as the most important mode. As you say, the weaker players die in the first couple of minutes, and then what ensues is what you call a 'real battle'. So battle favours musketeers, since they have a ranged weapon (low risk) and the most powerful ranged weapon per attack. If they stay hidden, preferably waiting for the enemy to come to them, then shoot them, there is low risk for them and a high chance of a kill. If musketeers are the safest troop type to choose, then clearly the Swedes will have an advantage, though this will be less significant on maps with little cover. I don't see why this situation, which is largely unique to battle, should dictate the balance of troops and weapons which affect all game modes. Maybe the problem is that musketmen are a bit too powerful now that they can walk around whilst reloading, reducing the effectiveness of cavalry and archers? This ability balances things I think for other game modes, but perhaps gives musketeers another advantage they shouldn't have in battle.

Maybe something needs to change, like having different weapons for different game modes, but at the moment I think the other multiplayer game modes work well. You seem to think musketmen are the only viable choice regardless of faction, but then what of all the other units? Should we just discard them and have every one as musketeers, camping until impatient players get killed so the last half dozen on each side can do the side to side reloading dance? Maybe battle just isn't such a good game mode if it encourages such a narrow and negative strategy!

By the way, I used to play battle early on in Warband, but after playing other game modes I did become too impatient, and regularly rush into danger in battle mode. However, I am confident that if I employed the winning strategy of camping I could be one of the high scorers in battle, but there comes a point when the goal of surviving runs against having good gameplay. Battle mode so often boils down to the most risk averse players skirmishing for the remainder of the round, often after both sides have spent as long as they can stand waiting for the other side to attack! How is that good for gameplay? That, in my opinion, is when players' desire to win the round has negatively affected the gameplay.

 

[Zbyh]

Well that's simple - if you have weak players they will make huge negative score to your team in any Deathmatch-type mode. Weak player will do much more negative ratio than good player can make possive ratio. Team Deathmatch or other Deathmatch types are about newbies and random respawns, they never were about good players. In battle (20+ people) this problem don't exists. Weak players don't play this game type, because "it's boring".
Oh, and no. Battle isn't all about ranged units. I can be first in score list with any class. But of course playing as Calvary or Infantry is much more risky than musketeer (which is fine imo). Charging group of enemies at the begining of the battle is pure suicide. Those classes needs more tactics. In deathmatches you don't have any tactics at all - just charge, kill as many you can, die, and... do this again, and again and again. You don't care about balance, you just care where you will be respawned. Sometimes you respawn at enemies back and you are in great position to kill them all (or at least most), and sometimes you respawn in the middle of 10 enemies and you are dead like 5 times in a row. You just need lucky respawns to top scoreboard in deathmatch-type mode. And if more people of your team will have lucky respawns than enemies, you will win - simple.