Petition to implement the classic Battle game mode into Bannerlord

[ReneKB]

Signed ofc

 

[K.A.]

They probably decided to not add battle because they weren't sure to do something good enough to please the competitive players. Better to receive complains by few players for the absence of battle than receiving complains for lack of features by the thousands players trying that mode at release. Battle requires organization and strict rules, probably skirmish covers that.
We played warband for too many years, our minds are a bit fossilized and don't accept these new things easly. This is your fault Taleworlds.

 

[Big Daddy Vitallion]

They probably decided to not add battle because they weren't sure to do something good enough to please the competitive players. Better to receive complains by few players for the absence of battle than receiving complains for lack of features by the thousands players trying that mode at release. Battle requires organization and strict rules, probably skirmish covers that.
We played warband for too many years, our minds are a bit fossilized and don't accept these new things easly. This is your fault Taleworlds.

They could have just added in a competitive game mode along with the classic game modes, mainly battle. The removal of battle seems like an attempt to push a certain style of competitive play (for the few) over the mass playable battle scene that warband has always had (for the many). Practically everyone i've spoken to about this has no interest in anything geared towards a "competitive" scene, they DO have interest in Line Battles, Shield Battles e.c.t., all of which require classic battle to operate traditionally.

It really wouldn't be that hard to make EVERYONE happy by having both game modes. This is starting to remind me of the now failed Dawn of War 3, where they removed the traditional Annihilation game mode (total destruction of an enemy base) in favor of a stylized point capture game mode to encourage an equally rowdy competitive scene. It failed. Horribly.

 

[MaHuD]

@vitallion, But not before some idiots bought the game anyway. (same goes for crap like Rome Total War 2)
If there will not be a beta, a demo or anything to try out the game, I will not buy bannerlord. As chances are it is going to be ****, and I refuse to 'find out on release'.

 

[Big Daddy Vitallion]

@vitallion, But not before some idiots bought the game anyway. (same goes for crap like Rome Total War 2)
If there will not be a beta, a demo or anything to try out the game, I will not buy bannerlord. As chances are it is going to be ****, and I refuse to 'find out on release'.

Depressingly, more and more people are adopting this line of thought. That's not a bad thing in terms of business practices, but how Taleworlds took such community support and managed to let it fester into genuine resentment is beyond me.

 

[Varrak]

We have been told that private servers will still be a thing in Bannerlord. What if we reduce the number of flags to 1, increase player number to 8v8/16v16, reduce the number of respawn ticket to "0" in server settings.. It won't be exactly battle mode like it is in Warband, but would be so similar right?

 

[Big Daddy Vitallion]

We have been told that private servers will still be a thing in Bannerlord. What if we reduce the number of flags to 1, increase player number to 8v8/16v16, reduce the number of respawn ticket to "0" in server settings.. It won't be exactly battle mode like it is in Warband, but would be so similar right?

Doesn't help the admittedly large crowd who want to be able to continue the 100+ vs 100+ battles they have going in NW, MoR e.c.t.

It's not so much about what's possible when the modders get their hands on it, but the unhealthy mentality of "let's remove this fan favorite game mode that 90% of our community revolve around and replace it with a niche game mode that will likely be shunned by a large part of the community because it doesn't allow them to do mass scale organised clan events. Oh and let's leave it to the modders to put it back in when people want it".

 

[Varrak]

We have been told that private servers will still be a thing in Bannerlord. What if we reduce the number of flags to 1, increase player number to 8v8/16v16, reduce the number of respawn ticket to "0" in server settings.. It won't be exactly battle mode like it is in Warband, but would be so similar right?

Doesn't help the admittedly large crowd who want to be able to continue the 100+ vs 100+ battles they have going in NW, MoR e.c.t.

It's not so much about what's possible when the modders get their hands on it, but the unhealthy mentality of "let's remove this fan favorite game mode that 90% of our community revolve around and replace it with a niche game mode that will likely be shunned by a large part of the community because it doesn't allow them to do mass scale organised clan events. Oh and let's leave it to the modders to put it back in when people want it".

But i didn't talk about mods or modders. Well, there will be private servers like today right? So we are pretty much able to adjust ticket number, player limit, flag number etc in server settings? Again, i am not talking about mods or modders. There are server settings within the game.

 

[Big Daddy Vitallion]

We have been told that private servers will still be a thing in Bannerlord. What if we reduce the number of flags to 1, increase player number to 8v8/16v16, reduce the number of respawn ticket to "0" in server settings.. It won't be exactly battle mode like it is in Warband, but would be so similar right?

Doesn't help the admittedly large crowd who want to be able to continue the 100+ vs 100+ battles they have going in NW, MoR e.c.t.

It's not so much about what's possible when the modders get their hands on it, but the unhealthy mentality of "let's remove this fan favorite game mode that 90% of our community revolve around and replace it with a niche game mode that will likely be shunned by a large part of the community because it doesn't allow them to do mass scale organised clan events. Oh and let's leave it to the modders to put it back in when people want it".

But i didn't talk about mods or modders. Well, there will be private servers like today right? So we are pretty much able to adjust ticket number, player limit, flag number etc in server settings? Again, i am not talking about mods or modders. There are server settings within the game.

Depends on how adjustable the server settings will be really. How this Skirmish game mode levels up to Battle is anyone's guess, but I doubt one would be able to remove capture points from skirmish entirely whilst decreasing ticket count to 0 in the vanilla admin console alone. That basically creates a new game type (battle), and will likely require new scripting through the modding community.

 

[Varrak]

Depends on how adjustable the server settings will be really. How this Skirmish game mode levels up to Battle is anyone's guess, but I doubt one would be able to remove capture points from skirmish entirely whilst decreasing ticket count to 0 in the vanilla admin console alone. That basically creates a new game type (battle), and will likely require new scripting through the modding community.

I know, it would be so similar to battle game mode, except maybe animations? But i can't comment on them yet since i didn't play the game. If there would be number blank in settings (there are in warband), i assume we would just remove the number of tickets per player and type "0" in server settings, it's done. If flags are not be able do adjusted in server settings, they could be removed from scene editor as last solution.

I don't expect any possible need for modding. I think we will be able to evolve skirmish into battle mode with just changing server settings and scene.

 

[Big Daddy Vitallion]

Depends on how adjustable the server settings will be really. How this Skirmish game mode levels up to Battle is anyone's guess, but I doubt one would be able to remove capture points from skirmish entirely whilst decreasing ticket count to 0 in the vanilla admin console alone. That basically creates a new game type (battle), and will likely require new scripting through the modding community.

I know, it would be so similar to battle game mode, except maybe animations? But i can't comment on them yet since i didn't play the game. If there would be number blank in settings (there are in warband), i assume we would just remove the number of tickets per player and type "0" in server settings, it's done. If flags are not be able do adjusted in server settings, they could be removed from scene editor as last solution.

I don't expect any possible need for modding. I think we will be able to evolve skirmish into battle mode with just changing server settings and scene.

That's actually a fairly decent point on a work around, though why we're at this stage of trying to fix a game that hasn't been released yet is another question entirely.

 

[Triune Impurity Rites 999]

I have signed the petition. I did so because I believe more options are better than less. However, despite all of the anger and frustration, I really thought there would have been more than 200+ signed. Not accounting for users not on the forums, and users too lazy to sign/don't care, I am beginning to doubt the popularity of Battle.

Regardless, like I have said, more options are better than less.

 

[Sundeki]

I have signed the petition. I did so because I believe more options are better than less. However, despite all of the anger and frustration, I really thought there would have been more than 200+ signed. Not accounting for users not on the forums, and users too lazy to sign/don't care, I am beginning to doubt the popularity of Battle.

Regardless, like I have said, more options are better than less.

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.

 

[DanAngleland]

+1 I for one haven't bothered signing it even though I'd like to see Battle return, and I see the petition numbers the same way as Sundeki. Do petitions work, and can I be sure that Momchilo is not actually luring us into a virus infested site to somehow benefit himself and his Nigerian Prince partners in crime? I cannot answer these questions, so haven't bothered 'signing'.

 

[momcilo94]

+1 I for one haven't bothered signing it even though I'd like to see Battle return, and I see the petition numbers the same way as Sundeki. Do petitions work, and can I be sure that Momchilo is not actually luring us into a virus infested site to somehow benefit himself and his Nigerian Prince partners in crime? I cannot answer these questions, so haven't bothered 'signing'.

Spoiler

 

[KhergitLancer80]

Depends on how adjustable the server settings will be really. How this Skirmish game mode levels up to Battle is anyone's guess, but I doubt one would be able to remove capture points from skirmish entirely whilst decreasing ticket count to 0 in the vanilla admin console alone. That basically creates a new game type (battle), and will likely require new scripting through the modding community.

I know, it would be so similar to battle game mode, except maybe animations? But i can't comment on them yet since i didn't play the game. If there would be number blank in settings (there are in warband), i assume we would just remove the number of tickets per player and type "0" in server settings, it's done. If flags are not be able do adjusted in server settings, they could be removed from scene editor as last solution.

I don't expect any possible need for modding. I think we will be able to evolve skirmish into battle mode with just changing server settings and scene.

That's actually a fairly decent point on a work around, though why we're at this stage of trying to fix a game that hasn't been released yet is another question entirely.

+1

 

[Sundeki]

That's actually a fairly decent point on a work around, though why we're at this stage of trying to fix a game that hasn't been released yet is another question entirely.

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.

 

[Gelden]

Posted my thoughts about this in another thread on the issue: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,375104.msg8939251.html#msg8939251

Spoiler

As many have eluded to here, and something I want to bring to the discussion: there has been a feeling of disconnect between the competitive Mount and Blade community and the developers of their beloved game. One of two things seem to be at play here. Either TaleWorlds are completely ignorant of the native competitive community, or they have little ambitions to foster and grow it - if this is the case I'd love to know the 'why?'. Is it a case of numbers and potential? (I.e. "not enough people play it therefore we should focus on more lucrative endeavors"). I understand not everybody may get what they want out of Bannerlord, but this is large community who have accumulated knowledge over 8 years that I think should be taken into consideration for the future of multiplayer in this franchise.

Well, the latest blog seems like they are trying to do something for the multiplayer domain, but it falls far short of its potential, and seems to have ignored the foundation that the competitive Warband community has built over the last 8 years. The reason you are seeing so many competitive players coming out of the woodwork with skeptical expressions is because each serious player has an idea of what the multiplayer game could be, and the community's collective dream has taken a swift kick to the scrotum with this latest blog. Not only that, but they (TWs) have done the equivalent of my blind grandma trying to throw a bulls-eye in darts - they seem to have completely missed the mark. My only hope is that the blog is not indicative to what we'll see come release day.

I sincerely hope this new game mode, which now seems to be what TaleWorlds is promoting (in place of battle) lives up to the hype you are trying to create. My advice, and the advice of the majority of the people who have successfully played your game competitively for years, is to keep battle mode. We know its strengths, and we know what needs to be done from a developers stand-point to fix the weaknesses. It would be foolish to release the multiplayer game without officially supporting the battle game mode. Release it (with the fixes that the competitive community have smoothed out over years) beside your new skirmisher game mode and let the community decide what the best game mode is.

I think for the conversation to progress further, we need to be civil. I'd like to hear the input of others from the competitive warband community and why we should try to save battle mode (if even possible). It might be useful to put together a list of strengths to try to convince TaleWorlds a mistake is being made.

The proof is in the pudding, really. We've been tinkering with Battle for years because at its core it's an excellent game mode. Every change made to it has had the effect of paring it down to its essence, which is the fight. What we want most of all is that.

I think this is the best argument I've seen so far for why battle needs to be kept. The competitive community has tried different game modes, but always flooded back to simple battle, for good reasons. Other, objective based game modes take away the focus from being on the 7 or 8 opposing players in front of you, to external factors (in Bannerlord's supposed case, multiple flags and morale). Competitive players are only interested in matching up their own group of 7-8 fighters against the skill of another 7-8 fighters, with external factors playing the smallest role possible.

To make an honest argument, however, we need to point out the flaws in battle. By no means do the flaws make it unplayable, and certainly they do not suggest that the game mode should ever be destroyed (alas, I'm still baffled as to why I have to be here making these arguments). Off the top of my head, I can think of the following issues that the community struggled with. The gold balance is big because we can't mod it out; other issues could be changed via mods, but the need for a revamped, updated and balanced battle was in the minds of every serious competitive player in the community, and most expected it with Bannerlord.

• Gold balance among items over different factions
• Waiting for flag can be considered a downside, which a shorter timer helps with
• Unviability of Khergits

There's probably more, but the positives outweigh the negatives:

• Single elimination
• Choosing your own gear (this is actually balanced because everybody is given the same amount of gold, the only thing to do from a developers standpoint is to make similar armour/weapon stats across factions for gear i.e. a heavy Vaegir chest piece has similar stats to a nord like-item, both available for similar amounts of $)
• Limiting external factors, maximizing the chances that a win is based on player/team skill using the combat system

I will make a quick note about gear customization and its importance before I end this. Allowing players to choose their gear can be balanced as well as allow for greater tactical potential. To give an example, there are times as a cavalry player that I may want to switch to a faster horse (courser) to be able to outrun the enemy cavalry. I take a risk in doing this, as it makes me more squishy, however, having it so the other cav can't catch me, I have opened up new possibilities for myself. There are many other examples of this, such as choosing an axe over a sword in order to break shields. Choosing a spear to shield-stun opponents. Choosing a lesser shield in favour of a better weapon. The only downside to all this, if you want to call it one, is that teams are gear swapping at the beginning of rounds.

I suggest TaleWorlds releases the new game mode under scrutiny into a testing stage at some point, before it is released officially, and that battle be released beside it.

 

[Duh]

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.

 

[Scarf Ace]

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.

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.

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.).

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.

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.

Removing such a popular game mode while providing no concrete replacement doesn't follow my definition of "pursuing higher standards." That's a regression.
Pursuing higher standards would be creating a new Battle mode that better addresses the flaws that systems like the flag spawn arguably don't fully address.

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.

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)

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.

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.