Petition to implement the classic Battle game mode into Bannerlord

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Best answers
0
+Duh

1-Alright fair enough it is the second most popular(right?) but it is wrong to say that it is only popular among the competitive community since non-competitive community also enjoyed this mode a lot. Also since it is somewhat popular(no matter what the degree is) I think it is TW that should show a good reason why they removed didnt include it.

2-You say diverting resources but we all know it is not about that since it is probably the easiest mode to implement to the game.

3-Now I understood your point in here but the problem in here is that TW does not offer an alternative. I mean from what I understood there isnt a game mode with perma death in the game atm. Its like ''we know you guys loved our mode in the first game but we kinda didnt spare any resources to make it better so in order to cover the quality of the rest of our product we decided to not include it at all !''

TW needs to understand that in a game like M&B there NEEDS to be a mode with perma death because it was the most immersive and close to reality mode in the game !

4- I didnt see who claimed that for me by far TW is the best company ever in terms of giving value to its community and I always believed it is one of the essential reasons that the franchise made it this far.

We are aware that this is their game and they can even delete the only existing copy of the game if they want but this forums is for the community to give feedback and this is sth that is just veeery wrong for most of the people and we just want to express our worries as the loyal community of the game nothing else.

I carried this discussion as a poll in Turkish forums as well
and I put 4 options
-I am unhappy with this call (5 people)
-Good, with this the new modes will attract more attention (0 people)
-Doesnt matter for me I am a singleplayer (5 people)
-Well I played it time to time shame (0 people)
It is fresh atm so participant number is low but I think it is safe to say that people are either unhappy or neutral with this call.
Neither in English nor in Turkish forums I encountered with someone who said ''good this way they will cover the quality of the rest of their product!'' or sth like that. 

EDIT: Forcing this many of people to use mods or do adjustment magics with skirmish mode (even though the game is not out yet) in order to ''cover the quality of the rest of the product'' will definitely be more devastating for the ''quality of the rest of the product''.
 

Sundeki

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Duh said:
Sundeki said:
Nah, the real question is why TaleWorlds is trying to fix something that isn't broken (and no I don't think that Battle is broken, it may not work perfectly all the of the time but that doesn't mean it is functionally unworkable). This entire line of speculation starts there. If TaleWorlds wasn't removing the most popular gamemode (for anyone with more than a couple of hundred hours) this whole discussion never would've happened.
Couple things:

1. "Most popular" is not a good argument, because the surveys TW has conducted indicate that Siege is more popular. Battle may be the most popular with the competitive scene (a few hundred players), but the discussion of popularity implies that TW should focus its effort on pleasing the majority of players, which the competitive scene will never be. That is not to say that popularity/other popular modes and competitions should be ignored, but that it may be more worthwhile and productive to argue WHY they are beneficial additions to the game despite not being the "most popular" mode in general.

2. A lot of people talk about the REMOVAL of battle from the game. That is plainly false. Nothing is removed. Battle remains in Warband. I feel that is an important thing to acknowledge, because it recognizes that TaleWorlds would have to divert resources to ADD Battle to their new game Bannerlord. If you simply complain "Why change a working system, Why remove battle", it appears as though you are claiming that there is no work in keeping Battle around (despite a new engine, new code, new combat system, new maps, new weapons, etc.).

3. Alongside the same lines it is argued that TW doesn't need to fix or change anything with Battle, because players (that argue this) enjoy the mode as it is. This fails to recognize that TW is evolving as a company and wants to pursue higher standards. They do not want to simply slap something unto their game. If they were to add Battle, they would have to make sure that it is in line with the quality of the rest of the product - to achieve their set long term strategy as a company.

4. People claim that Taleworlds doesn't care about the community, yet many in the community fail to take into account the motivations that TW has. Naturally, that is their prerogative... but it makes for a very poor argument. If you want Taleworlds to consider your preferences, you will have the best chances, if you also take notice of their motivations. That way you can determine common ground and showcase how the pursuit of YOUR wishes can compliment TW's own goals.

Wew.

1. "Most popular" is not a good argument, because the surveys TW has conducted indicate that Siege is more popular. Battle may be the most popular with the competitive scene (a few hundred players), but the discussion of popularity implies that TW should focus its effort on pleasing the majority of players, which the competitive scene will never be. That is not to say that popularity/other popular modes and competitions should be ignored, but that it may be more worthwhile and productive to argue WHY they are beneficial additions to the game despite not being the "most popular" mode in general.
I did not say that battle was the most popular(fullstop). I said it was with the majority of players with more than a couple of hundred hours, when what I should've said is more than a couple of hundred hours in multiplayer (we were talking about multiplayer and I assumed that was what we were talking about, sorry if that confused anyone). All of the two polls I've seen on this issue say that Battle seems to have the support of the majority of players (and yes admittedly they were of very small sample size).

A lot of people talk about the REMOVAL of battle from the game. That is plainly false. Nothing is removed. Battle remains in Warband. I feel that is an important thing to acknowledge, because it recognizes that TaleWorlds would have to divert resources to ADD Battle to their new game Bannerlord. If you simply complain "Why change a working system, Why remove battle", it appears as though you are claiming that there is no work in keeping Battle around (despite a new engine, new code, new combat system, new maps, new weapons, etc.).
I and others are not talking about TaleWorlds removing battle from Warband, but removing it as a mode from Bannerlord (or rather it not being implemented in the game). Quoted directly from the message sent by Callum: "Right now, have decided not to include Battle in the way it was in Warband".
This might be an issue of semantics, we don't know as there hasn't been any clarification, but when you say you aren't including Battle in Bannerlord in the way it was in Warband, you give the impression that it's either being removed entirely or radically reworked to the point where you wouldn't bother calling it battle in the same sense. In the same message Callum says that they created skirmish with [issues with battle] in mind, which once again gives the impression that Skirmish is intended to be the replacement for Battle, which added to the earlier message of Battle not being included in the way it was before seems to allude to Battle not being in the game at all.

Alongside the same lines it is argued that TW doesn't need to fix or change anything with Battle, because players (that argue this) enjoy the mode as it is. This fails to recognize that TW is evolving as a company and wants to pursue higher standards. They do not want to simply slap something unto their game. If they were to add Battle, they would have to make sure that it is in line with the quality of the rest of the product - to achieve their set long term strategy as a company.
Then their standards are faulty or they are out of touch with reality or what their players want. The popularity of Battle and the fact that some probably pointless petition to include battle got over 300 signatures in under 2 days, with a great chunk of the people I talked to about this issue (it was almost all of them) not even bothering to sign it; all that anecdotal evidence for me seems to signal that it isn't trying to "pursue higher standards", but rather they might be out of touch with the consumer base that funds them (through the purchases and word of mouth obviously, not direct investment).
And you also seem to be misrepresenting what the people who support battle on this issue are thinking and saying. Nobody of the 3000+ hours club of players I've talked to on the topic of battle considers Battle to be remotely flawless. TaleWorlds can "pursue higher standards" and "evolve" without gutting the (disputed now due to lack of information) most popular gamemode. They can do those things AND improve on battle. They aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest.

People claim that Taleworlds doesn't care about the community, yet many in the community fail to take into account the motivations that TW has. Naturally, that is their prerogative... but it makes for a very poor argument. If you want Taleworlds to consider your preferences, you will have the best chances, if you also take notice of their motivations. That way you can determine common ground and showcase how the pursuit of YOUR wishes can compliment TW's own goals.
TaleWorlds as a company (like all for-profit companies) exists for one purpose: generate income. The intentions of TaleWorlds as a game studio to meet that goal is to make the best possible game they can, which is probably the goal of Armagan and most of the other developers. I fail to see how implementing a single straightforward multiplayer gamemode into the game directly without a resort to the modding community stops that in. any. way. Nobody is saying TaleWorlds shouldn't make skirmish or improve their standards or any other such things, only that removing Battle from the game goes against the wishes of at the very least a massive chunk (or at most a majority) of it's playerbase (and virtually all of it's hardcore playerbase). Once again, none of that is mutually exclusive.
If TaleWorlds wants to alienate it's existing community (no not the whole thing obviously) in order to deal with the abstract they are rolling the dice. So many times with other games did developers attempt to "modernize" or "make the game more accesible to newer players" with their new titles and they lost the respect and thus desires of the hardcore playerbase. And what was the result? Those franchises don't even exist anymore and if they do they've become washed down failures that lose their cult status. TaleWorlds doesn't have to roll the die on this: just implement this one game mode with whatever minor changes you need to spruce it up, so to speak, and be done with it.
 

momcilo94

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
Duh said:
Couple things:

1. "Most popular" is not a good argument, because the surveys TW has conducted indicate that Siege is more popular. Battle may be the most popular with the competitive scene (a few hundred players), but the discussion of popularity implies that TW should focus its effort on pleasing the majority of players, which the competitive scene will never be. That is not to say that popularity/other popular modes and competitions should be ignored, but that it may be more worthwhile and productive to argue WHY they are beneficial additions to the game despite not being the "most popular" mode in general.
What are the surveys measuring though? The amount of players on a given server, or the time spent playing of an individual player in a given game mode? If the first, Siege will always win because it shuffles casual players, it is the entry gate for new players into Battle and other game modes. Rarely does a player stay on Siege once he gets a decent amount of hours in. If we were to go up the ladder in hours spent playing you would see that the time spent on Siege decreases by a substantial amount and the time on Duel and Battle increases a lot. Statistic can be a dangerous tool if you do not know how to properly read it.

Duh said:
2. A lot of people talk about the REMOVAL of battle from the game. That is plainly false. Nothing is removed. Battle remains in Warband. I feel that is an important thing to acknowledge, because it recognizes that TaleWorlds would have to divert resources to ADD Battle to their new game Bannerlord. If you simply complain "Why change a working system, Why remove battle", it appears as though you are claiming that there is no work in keeping Battle around (despite a new engine, new code, new combat system, new maps, new weapons, etc.).
They specifically said they are removing Battle and adding Skirmish. By Battle we are referring to the only one respawn game mode.

Duh said:
3. Alongside the same lines it is argued that TW doesn't need to fix or change anything with Battle, because players (that argue this) enjoy the mode as it is. This fails to recognize that TW is evolving as a company and wants to pursue higher standards. They do not want to simply slap something unto their game. If they were to add Battle, they would have to make sure that it is in line with the quality of the rest of the product - to achieve their set long term strategy as a company.
Change for the sake of change is the reason that many companies failed, and will continue to fail. If something is good, you can adjustments to it. However, do not remove the core concept completely. Taking away the one respawn game mode dramatically changes the gameplay, we don't need to lay our hands on the game to know that it will be for the worse.

Duh said:
4. People claim that Taleworlds doesn't care about the community, yet many in the community fail to take into account the motivations that TW has. Naturally, that is their prerogative... but it makes for a very poor argument. If you want Taleworlds to consider your preferences, you will have the best chances, if you also take notice of their motivations. That way you can determine common ground and showcase how the pursuit of YOUR wishes can compliment TW's own goals.
Oh do not be mistaken, we have all seen this happen before, and not just in this franchise. We do know the their motivations, and that is to tailor their game to be open to a more wider audience. This however, is a classic mistake of many developers. Quality, over quantity, goes a long way.
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
This is probably going to be a bit of a messy post, because some of the replies (seem to) have the same or similar arguments and I will thus attempt to address them together.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarf Ace said:
Then how about second most popular? Third most? Isn't it enough to say that people like it, and more importantly, who? It's a very important factor that Callum's post was heavily oriented around competitive play, while much of the response has been centred around non-competitive play. Callum's post implies that they totally forgot about that, thus pointing out that Battle is well liked outside of competitive play too, and for largely different reasons, is something TW should consider.
KhergitLancer80 said:
1-Alright fair enough it is the second most popular(right?) but it is wrong to say that it is only popular among the competitive community since non-competitive community also enjoyed this mode a lot. Also since it is somewhat popular(no matter what the degree is) I think it is TW that should show a good reason why they removed didnt include it.
I do think popularity matters and it is one argument FOR the implementation of battle. I simply reject the hyperbole of "most popular" due to the reasons I laid out. I don't think the focus should be on "what is the most popular" but rather on "what is popular" and how would these modes compliment each other in the setting of Bannerlord. After all, the popularity of one mode in Warband would not matter,  if said mode was made obsolete due to other modes in Bannerlord.
Sundeki said:
I did not say that battle was the most popular(fullstop). I said it was with the majority of players with more than a couple of hundred hours, when what I should've said is more than a couple of hundred hours in multiplayer (we were talking about multiplayer and I assumed that was what we were talking about, sorry if that confused anyone). All of the two polls I've seen on this issue say that Battle seems to have the support of the majority of players (and yes admittedly they were of very small sample size).
I specifically note on "most popular with competitive scene/MP players with lots of hours" and why that - by itself - is not a particularly good argument.
Momchilo said:
What are the surveys measuring though? The amount of players on a given server, or the time spent playing of an individual player in a given game mode? If the first, Siege will always win because it shuffles casual players, it is the entry gate for new players into Battle and other game modes. Rarely does a player stay on Siege once he gets a decent amount of hours in. If we were to go up the ladder in hours spent playing you would see that the time spent on Siege decreases by a substantial amount and the time on Duel and Battle increases a lot. Statistic can be a dangerous tool if you do not know how to properly read it.
I am referring to a survey that specifically asked players for their favorite game modes. It was conducted by Callum, posted on the forum and elsewhere. But yeah Server counts also support the notion. But again, why focus on what is most popular? Battle IS popular in Warband - if we want to see it in Bannerlord we should seek to explain WHY it will also be popular in and beneficial to Bannerlord. Ideally, in a somewhat organized fashion that does not conflate casual and competitive play. (I know that some folks are doing this, but well my initial response was to a complaint that didn't.  :razz:)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarf Ace said:
Barring totally botched releases or incredible popularity, the release of a sequel will usually shrink its predecessor's community down to almost nothing. In practical terms, that's pretty close to removal.
Sundeki said:
I and others are not talking about TaleWorlds removing battle from Warband, but removing it as a mode from Bannerlord (or rather it not being implemented in the game). Quoted directly from the message sent by Callum: "Right now, have decided not to include Battle in the way it was in Warband".
Momchilo said:
They specifically said they are removing Battle and adding Skirmish. By Battle we are referring to the only one respawn game mode.
I think we may be arguing for different things here. All I am saying is that people should recognize that TW would have to add Battle to Bannerlord rather than remove it. Because any feature takes work/resources to implement and that is likely one factor in their decision making. Dismissing/Ignoring this aspect is not only unappreciative and offputting, but weakens the case a player may make for battle as it appears ignorant. If we ended up creating a "Floris Mod" for Bannerlord and people started ****ting on us for "removing" Floris features in this manner, I would not feel very motivated to add them.

KhergitLancer80 said:
2-You say diverting resources but we all know it is not about that since it is probably the easiest mode to implement to the game.
I strongly disagree with this notion. It absolutely does play A role. Especially with higher quality standards in mind. Designing and Balancing Maps, Equipment and Performance alongside implementing the Battle mechanics and addressing whatever issues there are with them will take significant work. Other potential factors may be the focus on and advocation of modes with potentially broader audience appeal and better suitability for streaming and casting (of battles/events/competitions) or the concern with splitting the player base. You may disregard/ignore these aspects or proclaim their insignificance, but that WILL NOT make TW disregard them. Acknowledging and properly addressing them in some form is more likely to be fruitful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarf Ace said:
The quality of the new modes is entirely debatable in and of itself - there are plenty of posts by competitive players who don't seem to like certain aspects of Skirmish battle, while I for example am concerned that Captain Battle won't manage to to capture the essence of what makes Commander Battle so cool in Warband's mods and DLCs. (I can elaborate on this point a bit more if you want)
That is an absolutely legitimate point and I dont feel that it is in conflict with what I have said. My statement is only meant to highlight that TaleWorlds will likely not simply port the mechanics of Battle and slap it on existing maps, troops, etc. - because they want to create a more professional product than Warband ever was. I just wanted to further highlight potential motivations that the community might be well advised to take into account.
KhergitLancer80 said:
Now I understood your point in here but the problem in here is that TW does not offer an alternative. I mean from what I understood there isnt a game mode with perma death in the game atm. Its like ''we know you guys loved our mode in the first game but we kinda didnt spare any resources to make it better so in order to cover the quality of the rest of our product we decided to not include it at all !''
Aye, that IMO is the crux of the matter. It is up to us to convince them that it IS worthwhile to make this investment - by highlighting both the popularity of the mode (or what it entails [i.e. permadeath and small to large scale field battles focused purely on fighting] - because the name doesn't matter, the mechanics do) and that other modes - so far - FAIL to cover these aspects (well I guess Duel covers the fight focus... but only in a very different setting). By acknowledging problems and providing solutions that are realizable and preserve the core mechanics. By dealing with potential concerns that TW may have about Battles impact on their ability to advocate other modes (f.e. noting that that will be perfectly possible and hardly impacted if Battle is not part of Matchmaking or official servers and tournaments [dont crucify me for that last point people, plox]) or Battle's impact on player base division - (If they are concerned that Battle may reduce the popularity of their official modes that they want to see succeed, it woud be good to diplomatically explain why that is not a good motivation). Etc.

Sundeki said:
Then their standards are faulty or they are out of touch with reality or what their players want. The popularity of Battle and the fact that some probably pointless petition to include battle got over 300 signatures in under 2 days, with a great chunk of the people I talked to about this issue (it was almost all of them) not even bothering to sign it; all that anecdotal evidence for me seems to signal that it isn't trying to "pursue higher standards", but rather they might be out of touch with the consumer base that funds them (through the purchases and word of mouth obviously, not direct investment).
Momchilo said:
Change for the sake of change is the reason that many companies failed, and will continue to fail. If something is good, you can adjustments to it. However, do not remove the core concept completely. Taking away the one respawn game mode dramatically changes the gameplay, we don't need to lay our hands on the game to know that it will be for the worse.
Not what I was getting at.
Sundeki said:
And you also seem to be misrepresenting what the people who support battle on this issue are thinking and saying. Nobody of the 3000+ hours club of players I've talked to on the topic of battle considers Battle to be remotely flawless. TaleWorlds can "pursue higher standards" and "evolve" without gutting the (disputed now due to lack of information) most popular gamemode. They can do those things AND improve on battle. They aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest.
While the first few points of my initial post were directed at you (and those that share your views/approach), this one went a bit more general. It is directed at casual players and the combined arguments of "why remove something that already exists" and "you don't even need to do anything because I already enjoy battle as it is". I.e. it simply stresses that there IS work required - and I will note that you never claimed otherwise nor did I mean to imply that you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundeki said:
I think people are just increasingly concerned that TW may have forgotten how incredibly useful a tool the community was in earlier days. Much of the Warband multiplayer gameplay was heavily influenced by community feedback. Meanwhile Bannerlord's multiplayer development is extremely distant to its community. Without this "keep things under wraps" mindset, this entire controversy could've been avoided, for example if they had opened up a discussion about Battle, if it should return and how it could be improved.
Instead, they seem to have totally overlooked most of the merits of this gamemode to the point where they couldn't justify its inclusion in any form.
Fundamentally, I agree. However, the problem I see is that the current community reaction is likely to reinforce this disconnect between the parties. TaleWorlds may very well take it as "well we opened up and look what that did". Regardless of whether or not we should have to treat them carefully, the seeming reality is that we likely do have to if we want to change this lack of communication. It is up to us to restrain any anger we may have and make the best damn arguments we can. At least, if the goal is to change things for the positive. I cannot champion that cause for the Multiplayer, because 1.) I am not deeply engrained in that community nor do I have the most indepth knowledge of it or the Multiplayer gameplay and what matters to it casually and competitively and 2) I am already busy with advocating things that matter to modding (it is where I hail from, after all). Naturally, I still try to communicate the community's concerns to Taleworlds and vice versa, but I cannot properly organize the public discussion for you guys. I can only give you some insights on what brought me the most success when it came to the advocation of modding matters. (I.e. doing the ground work to collect and organize community  input, open and fair communication with them (open doesn't mean cursing), taking into account their concerns and addressing them - often before they even mention them, because well... they may just not mention them and maybe most importantly... providing them with a variety of options, keeping track of matters and reminding them over weeks and months - but not everyday - and not giving up the war because you lost a battle. :razz:)

KhergitLancer80 said:
We are aware that this is their game and they can even delete the only existing copy of the game if they want but this forums is for the community to give feedback and this is sth that is just veeery wrong for most of the people and we just want to express our worries as the loyal community of the game nothing else.
Yeah and I think it is great that people do express their thoughts on the matter. I am just trying to provide some input on how to do it more effectively :wink:

@Sudeki - Don't really have anything to say, because I largely agree with your response here and don't feel that it is at odds with what I said. I am sure you will gather from what I have written so far that I feel that it is important to look at the various aspects that may affect the long-term success of the product and the company  in detail.

Momchilo said:
Oh do not be mistaken, we have all seen this happen before, and not just in this franchise. We do know the their motivations, and that is to tailor their game to be open to a more wider audience. This however, is a classic mistake of many developers. Quality, over quantity, goes a long way.
Yep. But I, for example, feel that the focus on smaller scale, competitive modes (ONLY Siege is suitable as a 200+ mode) is actually less friendly to new players. Large scale battles offer anonimity and lack of responsibility. Other players do not heavily rely on you for their own experience and success, which takes away pressure and conflict and allows users to just **** about and have some fun or get familiar with the multiplayer in a free setting. Duel, Captain and Skirmish do not offer that. What they do offer is a broader appeal to spectating audiences.
 

Bloid

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Silly decision. How much hard drive space or coding did they save on that? Single-life Battle easily has the most tension out of all multiplayer modes. But petitions never work, especially online ones.
 

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
In my opinion, discussion should be like "implemention of Battle mode in matchmaking/or not".

Not "implemention of battle mode". Battle mod will still be there in private servers, you will just have to go to Skirmish mod's server settings and set respawn rights to zero, then remove flags from scene's editor, increase server limit etc.

Will this take more effort than current state? For sure, you would need 5 minutes to adjust these changes. But at the end, you will have battle mode in your hands.

The deal is, battle mode will not be supported in matchmaking. Not that it doesn't exist. It will still be a thing in private servers.
 

lolbash

Master Knight
WBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
Varrak said:
In my opinion, discussion should be like "implemention of Battle mode in matchmaking/or not".

Not "implemention of battle mode". Battle mod will still be there in private servers, you will just have to go to Skirmish mod's server settings and set respawn rights to zero, then remove flags from scene's editor, increase server limit etc.

Will this take more effort than current state? For sure, you would need 5 minutes to adjust these changes. But at the end, you will have battle mode in your hands.

The deal is, battle mode will not be supported in matchmaking. Not that it doesn't exist. It will still be a thing in private servers.
No it still wont. Removing the lives and flag and morale system still won’t change the problem that is preset classes and unability to choose your own equipment.
 

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
lolbash said:
No it still wont. Removing the lives and flag and morale system still won’t change the problem that is preset classes and unability to choose your own equipment.
Oh i was not aware of preset equipment and classes  :meh: I wonder if this will be a thing in siege mode as well.
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
lolbash said:
No it still wont. Removing the lives and flag and morale system still won’t change the problem that is preset classes and unability to choose your own equipment.
That is not a matter of battle (/skirmish) mode, though. It affects all (or most) modes as far as I understood. Duel may be different, I guess.
 

lolbash

Master Knight
WBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
Duh said:
lolbash said:
No it still wont. Removing the lives and flag and morale system still won’t change the problem that is preset classes and unability to choose your own equipment.
That is not a matter of battle (/skirmish) mode, though. It affects all (or most) modes as far as I understood. Duel may be different, I guess.
If thats the case, then we got an even bigger issue that is going to affect everyone that wants to play multiplayer.

What is stopping everyone from going heavy cavalry? Armored infantry. Or spamming 2 handers as naked men?

Class limits? Balancing with respawn numbers like Skirmish mode? Money? This is seriously going to change how multiplayer plays.

Its only comfirmed that we get preset classes for Captain mode and Skirmish mode.
 

Lt

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
This feels the same as Valve saying: "Yeah, we'll remove rounds from Counter strike have little to none respawn time and set 5 premade classes for each side". Essentially making the game a bit more complex team deathmatch.

I just don't see the reasoning behind all of this. Having a singular life makes the game so much more tense and weighing more heavily on your decisions. Having a more intricate gamemode instead isn't straight up the answer. At times, simple is better.
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
If thats the case, then we got an even bigger issue that is going to affect everyone that wants to play multiplayer.

What is stopping everyone from going heavy cavalry? Armored infantry. Or spamming 2 handers as naked men?

Class limits? Balancing with respawn numbers like Skirmish mode? Money? This is seriously going to change how multiplayer plays.

Its only comfirmed that we get preset classes for Captain mode and Skirmish mode.
I mean one - imo - relatively strong argument against lacking customization options and accordingly varied servers (that offer things such as permadeath, presets vs. equipment slots, various game modes) is that it may very well hurt their official servers. Yes, match-making is going to carry them at least for a while, but as time passes, MP mods WILL find and address all the things that they lack and players will move accordingly.

Edith:
One thing to take into account in regards to equipment and presets at least, is that they may want to introduce a ladder for their official servers - i.e. MUH BALANCE and comparability (of servers with the same mode at least) become key.

I actually think ladders would explain a LOT.
 
Best answers
0
Aye, that IMO is the crux of the matter. It is up to us to convince them that it IS worthwhile to make this investment - by highlighting both the popularity of the mode (or what it entails [i.e. permadeath and small to large scale field battles focused purely on fighting] - because the name doesn't matter, the mechanics do) and that other modes - so far - FAIL to cover these aspects. By acknowledging problems and providing solutions that are realizable and preserve the core mechanics. By dealing with potential concerns that TW may have about Battles impact on their ability to advocate other modes (f.e. noting that that will be perfectly possible and hardly impacted if Battle is not part of Matchmaking or official servers and tournaments [dont crucify me for that last point people, plox]) or Battle's impact on player base division - (If they are concerned that Battle may reduce the popularity of their official modes that they want to see succeed, it woud be good to diplomatically explain why that is not a good motivation). Etc.
I shall only take this as a quote since it seems that your arguements were gathered as a whole in this paragraph.
We didnt convince them to implement duel mode or we didnt promise them that it will be popular as it was in WB. Yet they implemented it with a few changes. It is obvious that they also tried to implement battle mode to bannerlord but while doing so they made more radical changes.(This is where being closed to its community kicks in, they should have asked to us. This was one of the backbones in TW's success: taking feedbacks from the community)
If they asked to us they would know that only one respawn is making the mode more preferable for us as it makes things more immersive and more real-battle like.

Let me get this straight, so you are saying that battle mode should be unofficial so that less people can discover it and play the other official modes ?
Dude you already knew we are going to want you crusified for that then why did you type it anyways ? :lol:
Oh wait you said ''it woud be good to diplomatically explain why that is not a good motivation''.
Well dont worry it is so obvious that it is not the case. Like I said whole problem is because they did not consulted to their community as they used to do in the past. They thought they had a good idea and they started doing radical changes while implementing battle mode to Bannerlord. Then as they realised it became sth very different they decided to rename it.

Maybe what you say started to be the case after that. They decided to leave it like that and they wanted people to test their new mode.

I would understand if TW wants people to test its new game modes and them give the game modes a chance but this is just not the right way !
They should do the same thing they did for the captain mode, invite some youtubers or maybe play it themselves  and just release couple of videos.If people are interested they will give it a chance if they are not interested then the mode just isnt good enough it is wrong to eliminate the best option and force people to play the worse options.

Edit:
+lolbash
For the morale points from what I understood they meant domination points. There wont be bots in skirmish mode so as you capture flags the enemy's domination points will decrease and they will lose as it reaches to zero. Gameplay wise not so different than WB battle flags.Only difference is that raising the flag isnt the case but holding it like that until the enemy points reach to zero is. So not so different gameplay wise but I wonder what will happen after game removes the flag hopefully they can also prevent that.

But you are right about not choosing equipment and preset classes.
This crisis is all because they didnt feel need of consulting their community. It is paying off right at the moment.
Hopefully we arent so late to save the MP.
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
We didnt convince them to implement duel mode or we didnt promise them that it will be popular as it was in WB. Yet they implemented it with a few changes. It is obvious that they also tried to implement battle mode to bannerlord but while doing so they made more radical changes.(This is where being closed to its community kicks in, they should have asked to us. This was one of the backbones in TW's success: taking feedbacks from the community) If they asked to us they would know that only one respawn is making the mode more preferable for us as it makes things more immersive and more real-battle like.
Sure. That may be how things should have been. But they weren't and aren't. People can be upset about that and concentrate on their frustration or they can take things as they are and try to fix em.

Let me get this straight, so you are saying that battle mode should be unofficial so that less people can discover it and play the other official modes ?
I am saying that that is likely the most realistic avenue to achieve the implementation of battle in the base game. An option for community servers. TW gets to make the ultimate call. We cannot dictate anything aside from a punitive rejection of purchase. Which would likely not achieve what you want. Offering different choices for compromise may thus result in the best possible outcome.

I would understand if TW wants people to test its new game modes and them give the game modes a chance but this is just not the right way !
They should do the same thing they did for the captain mode, invite some youtubers or maybe play it themselves  and just release couple of videos.If people are interested they will give it a chance if they are not interested then the mode just isnt good enough it is wrong to eliminate the best option and force people to play the worse options.
If my ladder speculation is accurate, I see their concern as two-fold (at least): 1. They do not want yet another official server mode (the current 4 modes could mean 4 ladders already) and 2. They are worried about other game modes on unofficial server detracting from the official servers and modes, which are meant to push E-Sports n ladder stuff. I believe the latter concern is not justified, though, because people WANT to be officially ranked. People will simply play both modes and an overall larger population would be satisfied than if there were no battle/other modes.
 

AJIexander

Subforum Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Developers, we understand that you want to make Bannerlord a cybersport discipline, we support you! But you can not cut the battle, it's not just another routine. This is a way to measure force against clans, reconstruction of battles and simply well organized battles in the form of events !!! This is not a battle of 5 to 5 is the battle of hundreds of warriors where we stand in the wall of the shields and breathless waiting for the two armies to converge in the bloodiest battle! I'm even ready to buy this in dls, as silly as it sounds. Hear us.
 

lolbash

Master Knight
WBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
I'm even ready to buy this in dls, as silly as it sounds. Hear us.
Do you want to be dicked by having half the game turned into hundreds of 15 dollar DLC? Jesus christ this is a terrible mindset to have. Be smart with your money. Please.
 
Best answers
0
Sundeki said:
Triune Impurity Rites 999 said:
... users too lazy to sign/don't care ...
Over 300 signatures in a day and a half, virtually all gained from a forum from an indie company, in the section for a game that doesn't even have a release date let alone actually released; doesn't sound particularly bad, and that's not taking into account all the people that want battle but won't sign because they consider petitions to be a waste of time. Last year I only visited the forums once a month at most and there's plenty of people that go many months without coming here because there isn't much point realistically. Over 300 is plenty man and more than I expected.
You just stated what I did.

From the discussions I have read in the newest Blog post, I don't really think there are that many people interested in Battle mode. I think the core group of competitive players are definitely striving to make sure this mode is an option in Bannerlord, which I think is right. There is certainly no harm in different MP modes, and having multiple modes tends to keep the game alive. Regardless, I don't see the petition going much over 400, at best, and I don't think TW will consider the effort thereof. I signed it myself because I believe what you put in, you get out. I don't play MP myself, but that doesn't mean I don't care, either.

I think what needs to happen is players who want the game need to focus less on the argument of popularity because it just doesn't seem that way, and instead highlight all the positive aspects of the game mode. I don't any points to introduce, myself, so I probably wont be continuing conversation here, but here is my 2-cents.

Triune Impurity Rites 999 said:
lolbash said:
Do you want to be dicked by having half the game turned into hundreds of 15 dollar DLC? Jesus christ this is a terrible mindset to have. Be smart with your money. Please.
Could not agree with you more. Although I have played M&B for ages, I don't really play video games much at all.  Recently got into a couple of games that were released before their time and I unwittingly paid for product that required many updates and DLCs in order to be considered finished. Oh man, I rue the day that I threw money away on unfinished products.

Let's just wait till the game is ready, please.
~Duh: Lets not do the double-posting :razz:
 

Sundeki

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Duh said:
This is probably going to be a bit of a messy post, because some of the replies (seem to) have the same or similar arguments and I will thus attempt to address them together.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarf Ace said:
Then how about second most popular? Third most? Isn't it enough to say that people like it, and more importantly, who? It's a very important factor that Callum's post was heavily oriented around competitive play, while much of the response has been centred around non-competitive play. Callum's post implies that they totally forgot about that, thus pointing out that Battle is well liked outside of competitive play too, and for largely different reasons, is something TW should consider.
KhergitLancer80 said:
1-Alright fair enough it is the second most popular(right?) but it is wrong to say that it is only popular among the competitive community since non-competitive community also enjoyed this mode a lot. Also since it is somewhat popular(no matter what the degree is) I think it is TW that should show a good reason why they removed didnt include it.
I do think popularity matters and it is one argument FOR the implementation of battle. I simply reject the hyperbole of "most popular" due to the reasons I laid out. I don't think the focus should be on "what is the most popular" but rather on "what is popular" and how would these modes compliment each other in the setting of Bannerlord. After all, the popularity of one mode in Warband would not matter,  if said mode was made obsolete due to other modes in Bannerlord.
Sundeki said:
I did not say that battle was the most popular(fullstop). I said it was with the majority of players with more than a couple of hundred hours, when what I should've said is more than a couple of hundred hours in multiplayer (we were talking about multiplayer and I assumed that was what we were talking about, sorry if that confused anyone). All of the two polls I've seen on this issue say that Battle seems to have the support of the majority of players (and yes admittedly they were of very small sample size).
I specifically note on "most popular with competitive scene/MP players with lots of hours" and why that - by itself - is not a particularly good argument.
Momchilo said:
What are the surveys measuring though? The amount of players on a given server, or the time spent playing of an individual player in a given game mode? If the first, Siege will always win because it shuffles casual players, it is the entry gate for new players into Battle and other game modes. Rarely does a player stay on Siege once he gets a decent amount of hours in. If we were to go up the ladder in hours spent playing you would see that the time spent on Siege decreases by a substantial amount and the time on Duel and Battle increases a lot. Statistic can be a dangerous tool if you do not know how to properly read it.
I am referring to a survey that specifically asked players for their favorite game modes. It was conducted by Callum, posted on the forum and elsewhere. But yeah Server counts also support the notion. But again, why focus on what is most popular? Battle IS popular in Warband - if we want to see it in Bannerlord we should seek to explain WHY it will also be popular in and beneficial to Bannerlord. Ideally, in a somewhat organized fashion that does not conflate casual and competitive play. (I know that some folks are doing this, but well my initial response was to a complaint that didn't.  :razz:)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarf Ace said:
Barring totally botched releases or incredible popularity, the release of a sequel will usually shrink its predecessor's community down to almost nothing. In practical terms, that's pretty close to removal.
Sundeki said:
I and others are not talking about TaleWorlds removing battle from Warband, but removing it as a mode from Bannerlord (or rather it not being implemented in the game). Quoted directly from the message sent by Callum: "Right now, have decided not to include Battle in the way it was in Warband".
Momchilo said:
They specifically said they are removing Battle and adding Skirmish. By Battle we are referring to the only one respawn game mode.
I think we may be arguing for different things here. All I am saying is that people should recognize that TW would have to add Battle to Bannerlord rather than remove it. Because any feature takes work/resources to implement and that is likely one factor in their decision making. Dismissing/Ignoring this aspect is not only unappreciative and offputting, but weakens the case a player may make for battle as it appears ignorant. If we ended up creating a "Floris Mod" for Bannerlord and people started ****ting on us for "removing" Floris features in this manner, I would not feel very motivated to add them.

KhergitLancer80 said:
2-You say diverting resources but we all know it is not about that since it is probably the easiest mode to implement to the game.
I strongly disagree with this notion. It absolutely does play A role. Especially with higher quality standards in mind. Designing and Balancing Maps, Equipment and Performance alongside implementing the Battle mechanics and addressing whatever issues there are with them will take significant work. Other potential factors may be the focus on and advocation of modes with potentially broader audience appeal and better suitability for streaming and casting (of battles/events/competitions) or the concern with splitting the player base. You may disregard/ignore these aspects or proclaim their insignificance, but that WILL NOT make TW disregard them. Acknowledging and properly addressing them in some form is more likely to be fruitful.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarf Ace said:
The quality of the new modes is entirely debatable in and of itself - there are plenty of posts by competitive players who don't seem to like certain aspects of Skirmish battle, while I for example am concerned that Captain Battle won't manage to to capture the essence of what makes Commander Battle so cool in Warband's mods and DLCs. (I can elaborate on this point a bit more if you want)
That is an absolutely legitimate point and I dont feel that it is in conflict with what I have said. My statement is only meant to highlight that TaleWorlds will likely not simply port the mechanics of Battle and slap it on existing maps, troops, etc. - because they want to create a more professional product than Warband ever was. I just wanted to further highlight potential motivations that the community might be well advised to take into account.
KhergitLancer80 said:
Now I understood your point in here but the problem in here is that TW does not offer an alternative. I mean from what I understood there isnt a game mode with perma death in the game atm. Its like ''we know you guys loved our mode in the first game but we kinda didnt spare any resources to make it better so in order to cover the quality of the rest of our product we decided to not include it at all !''
Aye, that IMO is the crux of the matter. It is up to us to convince them that it IS worthwhile to make this investment - by highlighting both the popularity of the mode (or what it entails [i.e. permadeath and small to large scale field battles focused purely on fighting] - because the name doesn't matter, the mechanics do) and that other modes - so far - FAIL to cover these aspects (well I guess Duel covers the fight focus... but only in a very different setting). By acknowledging problems and providing solutions that are realizable and preserve the core mechanics. By dealing with potential concerns that TW may have about Battles impact on their ability to advocate other modes (f.e. noting that that will be perfectly possible and hardly impacted if Battle is not part of Matchmaking or official servers and tournaments [dont crucify me for that last point people, plox]) or Battle's impact on player base division - (If they are concerned that Battle may reduce the popularity of their official modes that they want to see succeed, it woud be good to diplomatically explain why that is not a good motivation). Etc.

Sundeki said:
Then their standards are faulty or they are out of touch with reality or what their players want. The popularity of Battle and the fact that some probably pointless petition to include battle got over 300 signatures in under 2 days, with a great chunk of the people I talked to about this issue (it was almost all of them) not even bothering to sign it; all that anecdotal evidence for me seems to signal that it isn't trying to "pursue higher standards", but rather they might be out of touch with the consumer base that funds them (through the purchases and word of mouth obviously, not direct investment).
Momchilo said:
Change for the sake of change is the reason that many companies failed, and will continue to fail. If something is good, you can adjustments to it. However, do not remove the core concept completely. Taking away the one respawn game mode dramatically changes the gameplay, we don't need to lay our hands on the game to know that it will be for the worse.
Not what I was getting at.
Sundeki said:
And you also seem to be misrepresenting what the people who support battle on this issue are thinking and saying. Nobody of the 3000+ hours club of players I've talked to on the topic of battle considers Battle to be remotely flawless. TaleWorlds can "pursue higher standards" and "evolve" without gutting the (disputed now due to lack of information) most popular gamemode. They can do those things AND improve on battle. They aren't mutually exclusive in the slightest.
While the first few points of my initial post were directed at you (and those that share your views/approach), this one went a bit more general. It is directed at casual players and the combined arguments of "why remove something that already exists" and "you don't even need to do anything because I already enjoy battle as it is". I.e. it simply stresses that there IS work required - and I will note that you never claimed otherwise nor did I mean to imply that you did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundeki said:
I think people are just increasingly concerned that TW may have forgotten how incredibly useful a tool the community was in earlier days. Much of the Warband multiplayer gameplay was heavily influenced by community feedback. Meanwhile Bannerlord's multiplayer development is extremely distant to its community. Without this "keep things under wraps" mindset, this entire controversy could've been avoided, for example if they had opened up a discussion about Battle, if it should return and how it could be improved.
Instead, they seem to have totally overlooked most of the merits of this gamemode to the point where they couldn't justify its inclusion in any form.
Fundamentally, I agree. However, the problem I see is that the current community reaction is likely to reinforce this disconnect between the parties. TaleWorlds may very well take it as "well we opened up and look what that did". Regardless of whether or not we should have to treat them carefully, the seeming reality is that we likely do have to if we want to change this lack of communication. It is up to us to restrain any anger we may have and make the best damn arguments we can. At least, if the goal is to change things for the positive. I cannot champion that cause for the Multiplayer, because 1.) I am not deeply engrained in that community nor do I have the most indepth knowledge of it or the Multiplayer gameplay and what matters to it casually and competitively and 2) I am already busy with advocating things that matter to modding (it is where I hail from, after all). Naturally, I still try to communicate the community's concerns to Taleworlds and vice versa, but I cannot properly organize the public discussion for you guys. I can only give you some insights on what brought me the most success when it came to the advocation of modding matters. (I.e. doing the ground work to collect and organize community  input, open and fair communication with them (open doesn't mean cursing), taking into account their concerns and addressing them - often before they even mention them, because well... they may just not mention them and maybe most importantly... providing them with a variety of options, keeping track of matters and reminding them over weeks and months - but not everyday - and not giving up the war because you lost a battle. :razz:)

KhergitLancer80 said:
We are aware that this is their game and they can even delete the only existing copy of the game if they want but this forums is for the community to give feedback and this is sth that is just veeery wrong for most of the people and we just want to express our worries as the loyal community of the game nothing else.
Yeah and I think it is great that people do express their thoughts on the matter. I am just trying to provide some input on how to do it more effectively :wink:

@Sudeki - Don't really have anything to say, because I largely agree with your response here and don't feel that it is at odds with what I said. I am sure you will gather from what I have written so far that I feel that it is important to look at the various aspects that may affect the long-term success of the product and the company  in detail.

Momchilo said:
Oh do not be mistaken, we have all seen this happen before, and not just in this franchise. We do know the their motivations, and that is to tailor their game to be open to a more wider audience. This however, is a classic mistake of many developers. Quality, over quantity, goes a long way.
Yep. But I, for example, feel that the focus on smaller scale, competitive modes (ONLY Siege is suitable as a 200+ mode) is actually less friendly to new players. Large scale battles offer anonimity and lack of responsibility. Other players do not heavily rely on you for their own experience and success, which takes away pressure and conflict and allows users to just **** about and have some fun or get familiar with the multiplayer in a free setting. Duel, Captain and Skirmish do not offer that. What they do offer is a broader appeal to spectating audiences.

Good effort.

I specifically note on "most popular with competitive scene/MP players with lots of hours" and why that - by itself - is not a particularly good argument.
Opinion may not be a definitive measurement of success, but it sure is a signal. The people with lots of hours seem to overwhelmingly support battle and your hardcore fanbase can determine the longevity and in some cases success of a game. I consider the popularity argument to be reasonable enough in this case because when you gut (if only in the planning phase, but whatever) a part of your game that is the focus area of a core group when there is no logical reason as to why you have to do it is literally asinine. If popularity of a certain gamemode is as high as it is, then that in itself is an argument for that thing to be included in the sequel, I do not consider that to be a poor argument from a business standpoint at all. If you want money, you need buyers. Fanatical fans/players spend more money (e.g I have 7 warband keys and bought the game for 4 of my friends, who otherwise may not have purchased it. That's 11 sales from 1 person), so a goal should always be to pander to your biggest spenders if money is your goal, and make no mistakes, money is certainly a goal. Popularity matters, the popularity of things from your most fanatical base matters more. And when you have the most experienced players overwhelmingly support something that takes very little effort to do once the rest of the framework is in place there is 0 reason not to do it.

In creative endeavors with time limitations you have to prioritize some things over others. While that may not be quite as relevant here, pandering to your biggest spender per capita and most fanatical fanbase makes more sense than other groups, but ultimately that's irrelevant here as they don't have to choose.


Triune Impurity Rites 999 said:
You just stated what I did.

From the discussions I have read in the newest Blog post, I don't really think there are that many people interested in Battle mode. I think the core group of competitive players are definitely striving to make sure this mode is an option in Bannerlord, which I think is right. There is certainly no harm in different MP modes, and having multiple modes tends to keep the game alive. Regardless, I don't see the petition going much over 400, at best, and I don't think TW will consider the effort thereof. I signed it myself because I believe what you put in, you get out. I don't play MP myself, but that doesn't mean I don't care, either.

I think what needs to happen is players who want the game need to focus less on the argument of popularity because it just doesn't seem that way, and instead highlight all the positive aspects of the game mode. I don't any points to introduce, myself, so I probably wont be continuing conversation here, but here is my 2-cents.
Well I did everything on every angle I thought that matters. Appealing to a business owner of the popularity of certain areas that could make them more money isn't not an argument. Perhaps ultimately I'm just being too thorough and and just spamming everyone with every relevant opinion I have, but for me this issue is reasonably important, as far as issues in gaming goes anyway. I've invested too much emotion in this game to have the one thing I wanted most from it gutted from the design process for no arguable reason. If that means overwhelming anyone who is listening with logical conclusions, even the less meaningful ones, then so be it.
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Yeah, I agree. I suppose my focus is simply more on how and why this currently popular mode would fit into the new context and what I am guesstimating to be their vision and motivations for Bannerlord (Larger Focus on E-Sports, Ladders, Spectating Audiences, "Clean" Product with consistent Quality, Accessability , etc.). Admittedly, that is not an easy task given our limited access to information, but it seems to be the best thing we can do nonetheless.
 
Best answers
0
Now I really wonder what is going to happen in TW Office tomarrow.
I have seen some devs reading this topic and also Callum.

We will find out tomarrow I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.