Punish "Deserter" Captains? Addressing lone wolfing in multiplayer.

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

jlamb

Recruit
NW
Best answers
0
Relatively new to MP in Bannerlord but played Warband and commander mode in Napoleonic Wars extensively. I see that a pervasive tactic in multiplayer Bannerlord, at least in Captain mode, is still to camp your unit off in some corner, lone wolf around to pick off enemy bots until you get killed, take control of your next unit, and repeat ad nauseam.

I've always found that the majority of players not doing this find it derivative and borderline exploitative. It is annoying both to play against, since it forces you to babysit your units against infiltrators, and as a teammate, since by not participating and refusing to commit your units you undercut other players ability to engage in a pitched fight. You're basically turning it into a duel mode with multiple lives.

On the other hand, it's also incredibly useful to be able to scout out away from your unit obviously.

A very simple mechanic that would be easy to tune, and provide clear UI warnings to players, would be that if you leave some radius of your unit, you lose control and they start to issue their own orders, either moving toward an objective or target some enemy unit. An extreme punishment would be permanent removal of command, so that once you die, you cannot take control of a new unit.

In short, you should have consequences for abandoning your unit.
 

Kripaz

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
What Napoleonic server EU_Commander did was that player would do significantly reduced damage if they went too far from their unit. I think this would be best way to handle in Bannerlord.
 
Best answers
0
If you are miles away from your troops the punishment is that an enemy cav commander can find them and obliterate them. And if a big fight happens your team will be down an entire captains worth of units because they are sitting in a corner.

Its annoying to fight against but not super effective. The opportunity cost of maybe picking off 4 or 5 troops from a column while also risking losing your entire force because you wernt there to command them is very high.

I could just be prejudiced, but I really dont want to see every little action regulated like they were in NW. The entire NW culture of PTS and not being allowed to fire your gun 80% of the time in a game centered around firing your gun always stuck me as extremely anti individual and anti fun. I dont want the game to even remotely start becoming NW with swords.
 

PijeIBije

Regular
WB
Best answers
0
I'm not a fan of immersion breaking mechanics like magically reduced damage. Instead this could be fixed with a sort of "squad broken" mechanic: if a captain moves too far from the unit the commands stop working and whole team starts loosing morale (same effect as with taking flags but reduced).

If also respawns were increased by a tiny bit, each time a captain dies, the squad would end up in a broken state for that moment and that would result in rewarding taking down enemy captains with tiny morale bonus making captains overall more valuable.

Ofc this mechanic could be used for griefing, so being away from your squad could be treated the same as teamkills: can happen occasionally, but results with kick/ban if happens too much.
 

.Brandis

Subforum Moderator
Best answers
0
Magically reduced damage is dumb. If you get too far away, your unit should simply switch to the "Follow Me" command. That keeps game balance and removes a semi-toxic way to play the game.

I also agree with Eb, it's not super strong.
 

Kripaz

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Magically reduced damage is dumb. If you get too far away, your unit should simply switch to the "Follow Me" command. That keeps game balance and removes a semi-toxic way to play the game.
I actually feel dumb now. That never occurred to my mind and really sounds like the best option.
 

Ling*

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Honestly, if the enemy team has "Rambo" captains as we call them, just punish them by killing their unit. Chances are if they aren't focused on controlling their Ai they likely won't notice you slamming their Ai units until its too late. Having solo captains isn't a game breaking issue and has become part of the meta at this point ,to remove it would be silly.
 

Super Jew

Recruit
Best answers
0
People always complain about the cavalry rambos, but why not the infantry rambos? Or the archer rambos?

As an archer, you can simply leave your men in one spot and then go on the other side of the enemy to get the ai to turn their shields. When playing as infantry, people leave their ai on one flag only to fight as a solo unit somewhere else.

Is cavalry ramboing any different from archer or infantry ramboing?
 

TeutonJon78

Recruit
WB
Best answers
0
I'd be plenty happy if they just took the bots and make they stay somewhat by you, even when charging. The number of times I run up to a enemy unit and hit charge only to find out my whole unit turned around and ran somewhere else (usually breaking into 2-3 groups) leaving me alone is too high.

There should be a new formation command that lets them spread out and fight as the AI decides, but keeps them still as a unit within some soft-edged radius around you. The farther they get from your, the more likely they are to leave a fight and come back by you. "Charge" right now is basically "do whatever you want". A real life unit wouldn't fight like that.
 

Rfoishag

Veteran
Best answers
0
This issue is not to worth talking i think thats not even a issue if you can ''rambo'' go do it too...
And about warning idea it can be good but captain mode is about attention you should have your eyes at everything thats the way.
 

ak56

Recruit
Best answers
0
Magically reduced damage is dumb. If you get too far away, your unit should simply switch to the "Follow Me" command. That keeps game balance and removes a semi-toxic way to play the game.

I also agree with Eb, it's not super strong.
This it the best idea very simple. Ramboing is quite annoying especially when you have to watch the game for ages because someone feels they can beat 4 units on their own, while all your teams dead lol.

In the skirimish stage (the rare occasion when it happens lol) I dont mind it as it stop the enemy from camping, but becasue of the above its just annoying.

I agree with super jew though, if cav cant rambo only fair to stop everyone.
 

Ling*

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Ramboing is not a problem. I suggest you all get better at the game so that you can take advantage of people who are dumb enough to leave their troops un-attended. I encourage you all to play more hours in the game before deciding to suggest something like this.
 

Mabons

Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Ramboing might not be effective but it's godamn annoying having half your archer unit taken out by one lone guy on a horse. And don't say "play better" they are on fire at will but aren't hitting him. And I waste arrows to kill one dude and he comes back again and again keeping me busy while his 2 handed teammates get closer and wreck my team.

There is literally no reason in a competitive game for your units not to be beside you in the first place, so I see no harm in punishing or restricting people to having their unit close to them at all times.
 

ak56

Recruit
Best answers
0
Ramboing is not a problem. I suggest you all get better at the game so that you can take advantage of people who are dumb enough to leave their troops un-attended. I encourage you all to play more hours in the game before deciding to suggest something like this.
Captain mode isnt about being the best lone fighter, its about tactics. They have siege, TDM & skirimish mode for lone fighters.

As mabon says it may not be effective because they're not playing tactically, and that is the very issue. 1. I want my teammates playing tactically or giving it their best shot, they'll never getting better in this mode running around alone. 2. grieving is quite annoying, having to issue a 'face that way' command and dealing with them myself is unnecessary. Especially when Brandis suggestion is very simple.
 

Ling*

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Captain mode isnt about being the best lone fighter, its about tactics. They have siege, TDM & skirimish mode for lone fighters.

As mabon says it may not be effective because they're not playing tactically, and that is the very issue. 1. I want my teammates playing tactically or giving it their best shot, they'll never getting better in this mode running around alone. 2. grieving is quite annoying, having to issue a 'face that way' command and dealing with them myself is unnecessary. Especially when Brandis suggestion is very simple.
Griefing is annoying, but I don't want taleworlds to remove a core aspect of captain mode just because a few dudes who rarely play the mode think solo captains are annoying. What I WOULD suggest if having to chase around spare cav is an issue for you, we could have a !votekick or !forefiet command that players can vote for that would end a round if a griefer is just running around and hiding. I don't think arbitrary restrictions on how far you can be away from your troops are #1 practical to code and #2 a serious enough issue to merit change. Cavalry Ai is useless, so Rambo cav is really the only thing that makes the class viable to play.

Also, to imply that being away from your units means that you can't be tactical is not in any way a true statement. Many of the mechanics in captain mode rely heavily on and revolve around you being able to take your captain and position him to disrupt and distract enemy ai and enemy captains while your units engage in the main fight. Picking off a group of units 1 by 1 is also a tactical move that can be done by a captain. This notion that just because you are away from your units you arent being tactical is patently false.

Magically reduced damage is dumb. If you get too far away, your unit should simply switch to the "Follow Me" command. That keeps game balance and removes a semi-toxic way to play the game.
I don't agree that this should be necessary or that it should be implemented at all for several reasons some of which i've listed above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

.Brandis

Subforum Moderator
Best answers
0
Merged posts above.

I don't agree that this should be necessary or that it should be implemented at all for several reasons some of which i've listed above.
Captain should be about commanding groups of bots and executing macro level strategies, not hard carrying a group of useless cav AI that can't hit a thing.

Ramboing is a symptom of broken AI design, just because there's some level of skill involved doesn't justify it. A solo player cav running through your army and picking off units is a toxic playstyle. It doesn't feel like good game design no matter how you look at it.
 

Ling*

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Merged posts above.



Captain should be about commanding groups of bots and executing macro level strategies, not hard carrying a group of useless cav AI that can't hit a thing.

Ramboing is a symptom of broken AI design, just because there's some level of skill involved doesn't justify it. A solo player cav running through your army and picking off units is a toxic playstyle. It doesn't feel like good game design no matter how you look at it.
Yes, but the solution is to make the Cav Ai better, and Archer Ai better, etc, and to give the player more control of Ai capabilities. The solution is not to implement limits and restrictions on our movement capabilities and what we are and have been able to accomplish in the game up to this point.

I think of the Captain unit as a "hero" unit that if played correctly and effectively can wreak havoc and devastation on the enemy units, similar to how Warcraft 3 ladder games were played, you would micro your hero unit separately from your regular units and if you were able to do this with skill, that skill gets rewarded. Was it annoying when a Blademaster would Windwalk into your base and start murdering your Peasants while the rest of your units were out of your base? Yes. Was it a legitimate strategy that utilized core mechanics of the game to harass and gain an advantage over your opponent? Absolutely Yes.

In addition to this I think if you were to force units to "follow" after creating X amount of distance inbetween the commander "hero" unit and the Ai units, this would only result in lack of gameplay variety and would severely limit the creative capacity that players have to maneuver in the gamemode. The solution should be to add more content on top of this to improve the mode, not to take existing features away. In this case the feature being: free movement apart from your ai units.

There is literally no reason in a competitive game for your units not to be beside you in the first place, so I see no harm in punishing or restricting people to having their unit close to them at all times.
If you imposed this restriction here are just some of the things you would no longer be able to do as a captain:
1. Turn enemy shields.
2. Lure enemy Ai away from a fight.
3. Distract a group of archers.
4. Annihilate enemy troops while your Ai remains in superior positioning.
5. Bait skirmisher units into wasting ammo.
6. Capture flags while your units remain with the rest of your team.
7. Utilize high ground to gain a tactical view of the battlefield and command your troops remotely.
8. Hold off enemy units so that your archer units can create distance to kite.
9. Distract enemy captains, preventing them from getting kills and commanding their units.

The list goes on. Changes like this have a bigger impact on gameplay variety and the core mechanics of captain mode than i think people realize, and are not simple fixes like some people have proposed. All of the things I listed above I believe add value to captain mode and make it a more enjoyable experience as a result, to remove these features and implement restrictions on player choice and strategic options would make the mode more simplistic and un-enjoyable in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Moton

Regular
Best answers
0
People always complain about the cavalry rambos, but why not the infantry rambos? Or the archer rambos?

As an archer, you can simply leave your men in one spot and then go on the other side of the enemy to get the ai to turn their shields. When playing as infantry, people leave their ai on one flag only to fight as a solo unit somewhere else.

Is cavalry ramboing any different from archer or infantry ramboing?
It's very different because of mobility. If you as a cav unit notice your troops dying you can issue a follow me order and they will run away from most enemies wich is not possible for infantary, they will most likely die. Also cavs usuallay camp his cav units far away from the battlefield while infantary units are atleast holding a key possition or archers being somewhere where you can see and counter them.

Cav ramboing are far worse because of many reasons. While I agree that the AI needs some work not doing stupid **** like turning around because one enemie is behind them while they get volleys of arrow in them from another direction.
 

Moton

Regular
Best answers
0
If you imposed this restriction here are just some of the things you would no longer be able to do as a captain:
1. Turn enemy shields.
2. Lure enemy Ai away from a fight.
3. Distract a group of archers.
4. Annihilate enemy troops while your Ai remains in superior positioning.
5. Bait skirmisher units into wasting ammo.
6. Capture flags while your units remain with the rest of your team.
7. Utilize high ground to gain a tactical view of the battlefield and command your troops remotely.
8. Hold off enemy units so that your archer units can create distance to kite.
9. Distract enemy captains, preventing them from getting kills and commanding their units.

The list goes on. Changes like this have a bigger impact on gameplay variety and the core mechanics of captain mode than i think people realize, and are not simple fixes like some people have proposed. All of the things I listed above I believe add value to captain mode and make it a more enjoyable experience as a result, to remove these features and implement restrictions on player choice and strategic options would make the mode more simplistic and un-enjoyable in my opinion.
While I agree that many of these points need to be there some of them should'nt. They are exploits of an extremly stupid AI wich needs to be fixed rather than defended. In my opinion.

Turning AI shields as an example is outright bad AI design and should not happen. Archers should be forced to great possitioning and tactical volleys rather then who can exploit the retarded AI the best.
 

Ling*

Sergeant
Best answers
0
While I agree that many of these points need to be there some of them should'nt. They are exploits of an extremly stupid AI wich needs to be fixed rather than defended. In my opinion.

Turning AI shields as an example is outright bad AI design and should not happen. Archers should be forced to great possitioning and tactical volleys rather then who can exploit the retarded AI the best.
This is why I also agree that Ai improvement and better player control over the Ai should be the #1 priority when we talk about fixing issues like this, rather than implementing restrictions to the player. It's not the players fault the Ai is stupid, don't punish us for knowing about a weakness and then exploiting that weakness to win. Improve the Ai so that the weakness no longer exists and you will solve the problem.