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.
)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
)
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
@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.