Petition to implement the classic Battle game mode into Bannerlord

Currently viewing this thread:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
KhergitLancer80 said:
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.
Don't expect too much. Callum will breach the topic tomorrow. They will likely give it some time for further feedback to accumulate, discuss said feedback, formulate their own position and then eventually share said position in an official capacity. Best we can hope for is some further clarification on the multiplayer vision that they have and their thoughts and concerns in regards to battle, lives, equipment, etc.
 

Sundeki

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Duh said:
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.
Yeah lack of information on such things makes a lot of this speculation potentially pointless, I just hope that someone is actually paying attention.
 

lolbash

Master Knight
WBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
Seriously, alot of this could be fixed if Taleworlds releases a beta. Or more information. But oh well, hopefully the devs listen to Callum.
 

Silen

Duke
Best answers
0
KhergitLancer80 said:
TW definitely should at least upload a video about this skirmish mode since it would be the best way for them to show their point of view.

Gab-AG. said:
Nice try.  :lol:
What about this ? :lol:
Way more humble, who knows, this might even work! ^^
 

Scarf Ace

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVCM&B
Best answers
0
Duh said:
Accessability
I thought this site has a profanity filter!  :razz:

On a more serious note, I can't say I really approve of the other stuff either: "Larger Focus on E-Sports, Ladders, Spectating Audiences, "Clean" Product"
Turning Mount & Blade into another sterile competitive game where it's all about your rank would in my eyes be a horrible move. While there is a really high skill ceiling (in Warband at least), I don't really think that's playing to the strong points of the series, nor do I think it is the really marketable side of the multiplayer aspect of such a game.
This feels like a case of joining the popular game mechanic bandwagon. Ranked Matchmaking is really common these days, and naturally people want their game on the front page of Twitch. However, I'd argue that's exactly why Bannerlord shouldn't go down such a route. It should try to set itself apart.

As was said in the latest blog, Bannerlord is slated to support even higher playercounts than Warband. And Warband's already insane in this regard! That is where the marketable strength lies! That is something absolutely nobody else can deliver. Why throw that game design and marketing opportunity away by emphasising small-scale, competitive gameplay? Sure, it's small-scale, competitive gameplay with swords, but it's still a totally missed opportunity. I think this does seem to be the course they've set though. Not only with Skirmish being a "replacement" for Battle, but also with the way Captain Battle seems to eschew maximising scale and spectacle in favour of clinical map design. Being able to make things even bigger to me would mean "let's make a mode that is like you're controlling a Total War unit from the ground", not "capture the flag points on a corridorised map".
Obviously, if you were to emphasise scale, then a mode like Battle becomes mandatory.

I want to emphasise that I'm not against the implementation of competitive elements, but I am against de-emphasising the less "serious" part of multiplayer in its name. If they can make great modes designed for tons of players and a generally epic scale, I'm pretty sure that would make the game sell like hot cakes. This isn't something that should be left up to the mod community, and Siege is definitely not enough. As PUBG showed, huge servers and easy matchmaking can be a very powerful combination, and I'm assuming modded-in modes won't be in matchmaking
 

Dethikus

Banned
WBNWVCWF&SM&B
Best answers
0
Wow this is pretty shocking tbh, never thought they'd remove battle mode and say if we don't like skirmish someone can mod battle mode in. I expect players to say that, but TW themselves neglect the responsibility and push it on the community/modders?

I'm a singleplayer guy, and played single player til I got tired of warband. Then after that I decided to try multiplayer, and I am by no means "competitive" (I suck) but the only mode I ever played was battle mode. Not only the 1 life aspect from similar games (S&D from cod and such) but the ability to completely customize or loadout was amazing and my favorite feature. I could have low tier armor and a deadly weapon, I could choose a weak weapon to have better armor. I could have mediocre everything, but choose a low tier shield so I could add darts on my infantry for some ranged options. I could use default free weapons and shield, and have a nice two hander and good armor. It created such natural and organic diversity and variation making every battle different with heavy infantry, light skirmish infantry, cavalry with low tier horses and javelins or war darts. Nothing could ever create such a natural and player driven changing battlefield and tactics. Its really disheartening they would toss something out, in hopes to force players to try this new 6v6. Its not like they added a new battle mode, its different in everyway, preset, multiple lives, more objective based, morale system. Please don't do this TW
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Scarf Ace said:
Duh said:
Accessability
I thought this site has a profanity filter!  :razz:
Yeah, I cringed when i wrote it :razz:

Scarf Ace said:
On a more serious note, I can't say I really approve of the other stuff either: "Larger Focus on E-Sports, Ladders, Spectating Audiences, "Clean" Product"
Turning Mount & Blade into another sterile competitive game where it's all about your rank would in my eyes be a horrible move. While there is a really high skill ceiling (in Warband at least), I don't really think that's playing to the strong points of the series, nor do I think it is the really marketable side of the multiplayer aspect of such a game.
This feels like a case of joining the popular game mechanic bandwagon. Ranked Matchmaking is really common these days, and naturally people want their game on the front page of Twitch. However, I'd argue that's exactly why Bannerlord shouldn't go down such a route. It should try to set itself apart.
Well, if it is their motivation (I am speculating after all) and they didn't just try to fix battle for competitive and it ended up being a quite different mode that they feel isn't suitable for high player counts for whatever reason... then we kinda have to work with that ))

Scarf Ace said:
As was said in the latest blog, Bannerlord is slated to support even higher playercounts than Warband. And Warband's already insane in this regard! That is where the marketable strength lies! That is something absolutely nobody else can deliver. Why throw that game design and marketing opportunity away by emphasising small-scale, competitive gameplay? Sure, it's small-scale, competitive gameplay with swords, but it's still a totally missed opportunity. I think this does seem to be the course they've set though. Not only with Skirmish being a "replacement" for Battle, but also with the way Captain Battle seems to eschew maximising scale and spectacle in favour of clinical map design. Being able to make things even bigger to me would mean "let's make a mode that is like you're controlling a Total War unit from the ground", not "capture the flag points on a corridorised map".
Obviously, if you were to emphasise scale, then a mode like Battle becomes mandatory.

I want to emphasise that I'm not against the implementation of competitive elements, but I am against de-emphasising the less "serious" part of multiplayer in its name. If they can make great modes designed for tons of players and a generally epic scale, I'm pretty sure that would make the game sell like hot cakes. This isn't something that should be left up to the mod community, and Siege is definitely not enough. As PUBG showed, huge servers and easy matchmaking can be a very powerful combination, and I'm assuming modded-in modes won't be in matchmaking
Pretty much agreed. The player count simply sets the series apart from other games and they are not fully exploiting that if they are only using it in the Siege mode. I mean, yes, Sieges are iconic for the medieval period and will certainly come to mind when thinking about it... but so are and so do massive battles. And while some may say well there are (somewhat) large battles in Captain Mode that is not a very prudent evaluation, since the mode relies on the AI for its numbers. There is obviously a massive difference between 200 Bots and 200 players - both in sheer novelty and awe of such a service as well as actual gameplay experience. Large AI forces have been done in other games, Player battles of this scale and in this level of detail have not. And sieges will not provide the same experience even if all other mechanics were to be shared with a field battle. Others may be able to explain this better, but even the simple lack of a predetermined attacker and defender role can greatly alter the way a game is played.

Dethikus said:
Wow this is pretty shocking tbh, never thought they'd remove battle mode and say if we don't like skirmish someone can mod battle mode in. I expect players to say that, but TW themselves neglect the responsibility and push it on the community/modders?
I would not put too much weight on that particular statement as more recent ones have mitigated its meaning. If you put every word uttered on the most unforgiving of scales, you will soon realize that things have grown very silent or very meaningless.
 

Scarf Ace

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVCM&B
Best answers
0
Duh said:
Others may be able to explain this better, but even the simple lack of a predetermined attacker and defender role can greatly alter the way a game is played.
Actually, couldn't having a predetermined attacker and defender be a fantastic tool for pub battles, as a way to curtail the much-feared camping?
Of course, you do instantly lose something by having that, but I think it could be implemented in a pretty neat way for a field battle.

For example, you could have a sort of "Baggage Train" mode. Team A is an invading army. Team B wants to drive them from their lands.
Team A has a baggage train, where all their provisions are stored in a bunch of wagons or so. Team B's objective is to destroy over 50% (for example) of these provisions, which would force the enemy army to go back where they came from.
No respawns.

So in this scenario, you have a clear attacker and defender, but in a sort of Counter-Strike style manner, the attacking team can choose what they will attack. They don't have to destroy everything, so they can concentrate their forces.
This means the defending team can't be static, that they have to do much more than just sit on an objective and hold it. It would be vital to keep the enemy well out of reach of the supplies, creating an incentive for counter-attacks and general offensive action on the defending team too. If done just right, then I think it could be made a balanced enough system that you wouldn't even need to give the attackers a numerical advantage or so.

If Team A are winning hard and the timer has run down to a certain amount, or 3/4 of Team B players are dead, then in order to speed things up, you could spawn something in like in WB's Battle mode. A flag could spawn in somewhere (Team B's spawn?) that Team A can capture in order to win the game, that way if you have a few surviving Team B guys not doing their job, you have a good mechanism for finishing things.
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Sounds a lot like Fight & Destroy :smile: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Warband/Multiplayer

Overall it runs the same risk as skirmish in regards to alienating players that JUST want to fight. It may also be difficult to balance such objectives across player counts and maps.
 

Scarf Ace

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVCM&B
Best answers
0
Duh said:
Sounds a lot like Fight & Destroy :smile: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/Warband/Multiplayer

Overall it runs the same risk as skirmish in regards to alienating players that JUST want to fight. It may also be difficult to balance such objectives across player counts and maps.
Hehe, there are some key differences!

But yeah, what I tried is to quickly think up a mode in which you could mostly have relatively undistracted combat, but with enough "direction" to keep things going, to make it "matchmaking friendly". I'm still all for a classic Battle mode too.
The baggage train is little more than a way to make two massive teams collide, an objective that is attainable, but it'll take a lot of killing. The spread out, unfortified objectives and the fact that you don't need to destroy (or defend!) everything discourages camping on the defending side, it gives you an incentive to get in there and fight. The important thing is to design the objectives correctly - They can't be too time-consuming to destroy, yet resilient enough that cavalry drive-by's aren't the optimal approach.
My idea would just be to make it so that you need to get into the wagons to whack the provisions, causing the butter to spill out of the barrels or something.
Making it a thing that you destroy also means that you don't win by doggy-piling anything - you need to truly secure the objectives, meaning that only a small minority of attackers are actually destroying things - most are fighting.

In other words, if you set out to smack lots of enemy heads, you're playing the objective!
 

tompaw0w

Marquis
Best answers
0
It seems to me taleworlds want to promote competitive mount & blade with Battle of Bucharest and continue on that road in Bannerlord. However they are doing it wrong..

You can not expect to remove -the competitive- gamemode which is battle and replace it with a game mode that have not been tested in this setting before and not a single player in the competitive community has asked for it to change, or been consulted for that matter.

It seems to me I have to agree with some posts back, TW appear to be very distant with the development of the mulitplayer side of things. There is still time to change, and I can only judge the game as soon as it has been released.
 

Rhade

Master Knight
Best answers
0
SvenssonHD said:
It seems to me taleworlds want to promote competitive mount & blade with Battle of Bucharest and continue on that road in Bannerlord. However they are doing it wrong..

You can not expect to remove -the competitive- gamemode which is battle and replace it with a game mode that have not been tested in this setting before and not a single player in the competitive community has asked for it to change, or been consulted for that matter.

It seems to me I have to agree with some posts back, TW appear to be very distant with the development of the mulitplayer side of things. There is still time to change, and I can only judge the game as soon as it has been released.
Discussed here at length:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,375172.0.html
 

Callum

Community Manager
Best answers
0
Most of you saw the PM I sent saying that there will be no Battle mode in the same way as it was in Warband. While this is in part true, it appears to be completely misleading, so please allow me to clarify the situation.

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

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

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

It would be really helpful if you could leave any feedback or thoughts about this over in this thread: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,375184.0.html rather than spread out over the handful of threads which are currently discussing this issue. Thanks!
 

The Bowman

Count
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I don't know, Callum, but I really can't buy the explanation. This seems more like a design decision that was adopted as good enough by the developers, but is too late to change even after it gets blasted by the community.

I do understand that changing or adding things on the go is a bad practice in development, but this is one of those situations when you can't just let it slide knowing it may go wrong in the end.

My position is that battle, as we know it in Warband has to be in, and there is absolutely no need to show the players they exact way they should enjoy the game. In other words, I don't see how the company can ever lose anything by deciding to add the battle mode as we know it. Your decision totally contradicts the freedom which you have alluded to in the blog when you mentioned that MP "is an opportunity to run around naked with a two-handed sword". According to the current state of matters, that is plainly hypocritical.
 

Duh

Duke
M&BWB
Best answers
0
Battle, in some form, will be in for private servers - same as Warband. It likely won't be on the official matchmaking servers run by TW.

If you want the devs and/or callum to read what you have to say, move over to the dedicated thread that he linked.
 

Poddicus

Veteran
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
I have no clue why they're not including it in Bannerlord.
Seems like a really bad design decision, loads of players including myself love battle mode.
 

vicwiz007

D
Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
A petition? Seriously? You havent even given the new mode a try. Anyway if you really like that mode so much no doubt someone will run a server with it.
 

momcilo94

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
vicwiz007 said:
A petition? Seriously? You havent even given the new mode a try. Anyway if you really like that mode so much no doubt someone will run a server with it.
something tells me you do not have a lot of hours in multiplayer
 
Status
Not open for further replies.