It didn't make any sense for them to introduce this so-called class system into the game in the first place. I can't help myself but to hate the decisions they've made developing Bannerlord multiplayer, they have gone massive steps back and seem to not care or realise at all.
Yes, any average player who played Warband for a few years here and there can come and say he likes the way Bannerlord is played, but anyone who spent hundreds on top of hundreds of hours in multiplayer will need just one look at the game to realise it's nothing else than just a massive spit in their face. And I know this isn't intentional, I know TaleWorlds is doing what they think is best for their diverse player-base, but they've had so, so, so much time to do their research, to work on something that will work and won't split the community as it did now.
They've introduced a class system with the assumption that it will be a great system for both, competitive and casual players, easier to balance, easier to manage, understand and document in statistics. Sorry, but we can agree to disagree. More options don't inevitably lead to more imbalance, there are more factors affecting this. At this point, I even think that the community would manage to create a much better system that would be mostly liked by all parts of the player base, being stubborn and uncommunicative when developing games for a community doesn't help.
EDIT:
Not to say I do not appreciate their work on developing Bannerlord. I am still a big fanboy of TW and it will stay that way until the day I die, but I am not happy with the state the game is in and I will do everything I can do change some of the major drawbacks it has compared to Warband.
I'd say that the exception proves the rule, though I do exaggerate.I played many thousands of hours of multiplayer and disagree - it makes little fundamental difference to the game... you like alot of people arguing for it have blown it way out of proportion.
If these were some "little fundamental differences" there wouldn't be so much opposition to it. But there is, meaning its not a little fundamental difference.I played many thousands of hours of multiplayer and disagree - it makes little fundamental difference to the game... you like alot of people arguing for it have blown it way out of proportion.
The best term for premade classes i have seen so far.grave insult to the sheer amount of armours that are currently available in this game.
That's hilarious!
It was an exaggeration. For a better example... I don't know why anyone would want to play as a peasant with a pitchfork and wooden club when the enemy team is steam rolling with heavy cav and decked out infantry. The snowballing is definitely still there.It isn't possible for one player to spawn 3 times as heavy cavalry in a single round.
Agreed. I have no problem with this class system in Captain's Mode. I don't play it. If the majority of people think it works for that mode, then it should be there. The rest of the game should not be sacrificed for the sake of one mode, however.I like this new class system in captain mode, but i feel like other game modes should have the good old system.
1: Most of the choices in Bannerlord are irrelevant. I don't want any of the second perk selections most of the time. Meaning I'm choosing between 3 options, and one of the options is clearly superior most of the time. I have the gameplaye and style chosen for me. I shouldn't have said "Most of the choices in Bannerlord are irrelevant", I should have said that almost all of the time there are no choices.- Many choices were irrelevant (tiny increments).
- Best option was often the only real option to min-max.
- Very off-putting for new players.
- Faction balance was atrocious (hell Khergits were removed in most cases).
It completely ruins my game, personally, and disrupts balance. You're free to have your opinion that you like it, or that it doesn't change your experience. It ruins mine.I played many thousands of hours of multiplayer and disagree - it makes little fundamental difference to the game... you like alot of people arguing for it have blown it way out of proportion.
Helmets, theres barely any difference between the 2 heavy helmets or around 5 armor
Arming Cap = meme?
Helmet with Cap = meme?
Helmet with Neckguard = medium helmet
Flat topped Helmet = medium helmet
Guard Helmet = upgraded heavy helmet
Great Helmet = upgraded heavy helmet
Armour
Red Tunic
Leather Armor = medium armor
Red Gambeson = medium armor
Haubergeon = heavy armor
Brigandine = heavy armor
boots are similar and gloves have rly low impact
1 handed weapons = 3 swords that are all similar, short sword too short for battle
Sword
Short Sword
Sword
Short Arming Sword
Arming Sword
Polearms
Awl pike
Long Awl Pike = cav drop
Throwing weapons = cant take it because of no gold left, they are way too low in dmg to be effective or useful
Darts
War Darts
2 handed weapons = litterly just duel weapons
Bastard Sword
Heavy Bastard Sword
Two handed Sword
Great Sword
In the end this leaves you with the option to go medium armor infantry with shield a sword and an awlpike
If you get enough gold you can go for heavy armor
If you drop for cav you cant even go for awlpike and throwing
im mostly talking about competitiveAnyone who can look at all that choice and only find 1 or 2 playstyles is being willfully blind or has zero imagination.
The short swords have such a tiny swing radius and are so fast that a good player can slice you into ribbons with one. But they have little reach, so they need to facehug (a playstyle). The arming sword is a nice 1 hand weapon, perfect for vanilla "sword and board" (a playstyle). Either weapon is elegant with no shield (a playstyle).
The bastard swords feel quite different from each other, let alone the other weapons. The first bastard sword is faster and can be used effectively as a 1 hander, the second has too much of a speed disadvantage as a 1 hander (imo), but either is a screaming fast 2 hander. One tactic I like to use is hold the shield while I'm running and being shot at, and then switch to 2 hands when I'm in melee range (a playstyle).
The 2 hand sword is a perfect combination of speed, reach, and swordliness. Its sad you think it only belongs on a duel server because it’s my weapon of choice in every mode. The great sword is better in every way but swag.
The awlpikes are different because of reach and cost. I'd usually take the longer one if I can afford it, but it does require you to maintain distance (a playstyle). Like the bastard sword, these can also be played 1 handed or 2 handed and it feels very different. 1 hand with shield is fantastic against cavalry and also when assisting teammates (a playstyle). 2 handed awlpikes can do serious damage against heavy armor and have lots of reach, but you have to maintain distance to avoid getting jammed, watch out for stuns from heavier weapons, and do a lots of spins and feints to open up your opponent’s guard (a playstyle).
Throwing weapons have great utility (take out horses, pummel archers, stun infantry mid-swing) until you get close, or they can be a highly annoying, effective playstyle all on their own.
All of this, AND Swadian infantry is the blandest infantry faction in WB, which is balanced because they also have the strongest cavalry.
Competitive had some interesting choices like picking war spear vs regular spear or picking a **** shield with a good 1him mostly talking about competitive
like spear infantry kekw interesting choice indeedCompetitive had some interesting choices like picking war spear vs regular spear or picking a **** shield with a good 1h
im mostly talking about competitive
Yeah like sometimes people would use a hammer or pike on rhodoks that was pretty interestingI'm mostly talking about fun. But any Competitive player worth their salt would have mastered all of those styles and a dozen more besides. Because it would be boring to be limited to the optimal* loadout for ranked tournaments in every situation.
*Optimal wasn't inherently obvious either. Tactics and gear choice evolved over the years.