RIP MP

[DainMorgot]

How strange - I haven't actually played a single game of skirmish since the beta as I'm far more invested in siege, captains, singleplayer and TDM now. I played 200 something games before release - I'm happy to give it a break. Weird - It almost sounds like you are lying...?

In Summary: Just stop. The desperation is becoming difficult to read....

Also you get that is the whole point of the kicking mechanic right? To open up blocks? You make it sound like some revolutionary new thing. It could use work certainly but it is nothing to do with the discussion we are supposed to be having. If someone is backpedalling often then they are a new player.

I saw your name 'Axios' with the same avatar on skirmish nearly 2 weeks ago. Not sure why you deny that, but ok, I guess you feel bad. Regardless, I dont really care.

To address your kick point, you do understand that kicking in Bannerlord accomplishes nothing on its own, right? It's just a pace breaker. Unless you glitch it and get the accelerated animation. Kicking in warband was a defensive anti-facehugging mechanic. It had opening capablities but it was very hard to do, even to experienced players. Kicking in bannerlord is as easy as it could get.

 

[Alyss]

 

[AxiosXiphos]

I saw your name 'Axios' with the same avatar on skirmish nearly 2 weeks ago. Not sure why you deny that, but ok, I guess you feel bad. Regardless, I dont really care.

Two weeks ago I had just purchased a new computer. I installed bannerlord beta patch to play a new single player campaign. Vlandians. At this time the new total war expansion was announced and I was playing a lot of that MP. I have only as of four days ago reinstalled the current patch of bannerlord to play multiplayer. I have not played a single game of skirmish in the last two months. Indeed before a few days ago I had not logged into multiplayer at all for about 3-4 weeks having enjoyed SP.

I had taken a near total break from the game and the forum; hence the gap in any posts from me. This can clearly be seen in my activity logs.

I'm not sure who you are trying to convince here. Me? Yourself? Other people? Whatever you are trying to prove - stop it.

You tried to call me out on my playtime - I proved you wrong.

You tried to call me out for being new to M&B or being 'casual'. I proved you wrong.

You tried to say I only played NW. I proved you wrong.

You started accusing me of playing in specific ways or playing badly. I proved you had no idea.

You are now making up times and dates where I apparently played the game. I proved you a liar.

 

[Younes]

TOP QUALITY MEME

 

[Maroon]

This is a fundamental problem with any progression based competitive game though.

Now you can say that the class system exacerbates this issue - in fact it clearly does. However a warband customisation system does this just as much - perhaps even worse. In Warband the team with advantage can load up with the best gear, armour and weapons - they have an advantage in all fields and can stack these to an insane level. Imagine Skirmish mode in warband? One team using starter kit and the other bedecked in cuir bouilli, great helms, great swords and shield/sword of max level. Yes they may be a little slow but they will have an astronomical advantage over a team of leather-shirts.

Now in bannerlord it clearly needs work - and this is understandable but the warband system does not curve snowballing and these issues are persistent in all progression based competiive games.

Quite right: the way gold is set up with the class system is a classic example of a positive feedback loop. Strong teams keep getting more advantages, weak teams keep getting more disadvantages. Warband also had this issue, and both Bannerlord and Warband try to counteract it with a negative feedback loop: if your class/equipment is worth more than your opponent's, you get less gold if you kill them, and they get more gold if they kill you. Finding a balance between the two is key for a competitive environment.
In my opinion, though, Bannerlord is further off the mark than Warband was. This is because the amount of kills/gold required to get a major advantage in Bannerlord is a lot smaller than it was in Warband:

In Warband, you had to get 5-10 kills without dying once to get a top set of equipment (cuir bouilli, great helm, great sword, etc like you said). Depending on the size of the battle, you'd need multiple rounds before you can get there, unless you're the only one on your team getting kills.

In Bannerlord, winning one round of Skirmish without dying once means you get... what, 90 gold extra the next round? That's enough to get one additional life as a stronger class, which is a major advantage compared to the other team that needs to respawn as weak classes very quickly. Moreover, everyone in the winning team gets this advantage. Warband also gave gold to the entire winning team, but not enough to buy top equipment, and if you die once with better equipment you're stuck with less again. That's still a snowballing effect, but not as big of an effect as Bannerlord has.

So in conclusion: both have snowballing, but Bannerlord made it worse by reducing the impact of the negative feedback loop designed to curb snowballing.

 

[DainMorgot]

Two weeks ago I had just purchased a new computer. I installed bannerlord beta patch to play a new single player campaign. Vlandians. At this time the new total war expansion was announced and I was playing a lot of that MP. I have only as of four days ago reinstalled the current patch of bannerlord to play multiplayer. I have not played a single game of skirmish in the last two months. Indeed before a few days ago I had not logged into multiplayer at all for about 3-4 weeks having enjoyed SP.

I had taken a near total break from the game and the forum; hence the gap in any posts from me. This can clearly be seen in my activity logs.

I'm not sure who you are trying to convince here. Me? Yourself? Other people? Whatever you are trying to prove - stop it.

You tried to call me out on my playtime - I proved you wrong.

You tried to call me out for being new to M&B or being 'casual'. I proved you wrong.

You tried to say I only played NW. I proved you wrong.

You started accusing me of playing in specific ways or playing badly. I proved you had no idea.

You are now making up times and dates where I apparently played the game. I proved you a liar.

lol nah, you just dismiss everything and claimed you prove things and we have to take your word for it. see you on skirmish when you decide to get stomped (again). have fun playing SP with bots

 

[AxiosXiphos]

lol nah, you just dismiss everything and claimed you prove things and we have to take your word for it. see you on skirmish when you decide to get stomped (again). have fun playing SP with bots

The burden of proof is on the claim not the denial.

Burden of proof (philosophy) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Interesting reading.

Now either provide evidence, your steam profile or stop. However I know you're lying. You know you are lying. And you refuse to provide your profile in public as you know it will further damage your arguement. So your only option will be to try and play this off. I await your sarcastic remark....

Quite right: the way gold is set up with the class system is a classic example of a positive feedback loop. Strong teams keep getting more advantages, weak teams keep getting more disadvantages. Warband also had this issue, and both Bannerlord and Warband try to counteract it with a negative feedback loop: if your class/equipment is worth more than your opponent's, you get less gold if you kill them, and they get more gold if they kill you. Finding a balance between the two is key for a competitive environment.
In my opinion, though, Bannerlord is further off the mark than Warband was. This is because the amount of kills/gold required to get a major advantage in Bannerlord is a lot smaller than it was in Warband:

In Warband, you had to get 5-10 kills without dying once to get a top set of equipment (cuir bouilli, great helm, great sword, etc like you said). Depending on the size of the battle, you'd need multiple rounds before you can get there, unless you're the only one on your team getting kills.

In Bannerlord, winning one round of Skirmish without dying once means you get... what, 90 gold extra the next round? That's enough to get one additional life as a stronger class, which is a major advantage compared to the other team that needs to respawn as weak classes very quickly. Moreover, everyone in the winning team gets this advantage. Warband also gave gold to the entire winning team, but not enough to buy top equipment, and if you die once with better equipment you're stuck with less again. That's still a snowballing effect, but not as big of an effect as Bannerlord has.

So in conclusion: both have snowballing, but Bannerlord made it worse by reducing the impact of the negative feedback loop designed to curb snowballing.

Now this is actually a very valid and well spoken arguement. I cant disagree with your analysis- it's perfectly true. However; what I would say is that this is a balancing issue not a design issue. With cost and reward adjustments this could be fixed within the framework of the class system.

 

[Swordnoob1]

xd

 

[Maroon]

Now this is actually a very valid and well spoken arguement. I cant disagree with your analysis- it's perfectly true. However; what I would say is that this is a balancing issue not a design issue. With cost and reward adjustments this could be fixed within the framework of the class system.

It could be reworked to help mitigate this issue, true, but the problem is that TW doesn't even see this issue. It's been pointed out since the alpha that this is one of the consequences of the current iteration of the class system (and its gold values), yet the only adjustment done so far has been slightly tweaking the value of a handful of classes. They even said that their goal with the class system is "removing snowballing from the game", and from their communication it sounds like they feel this has been achieved, when it's actually quite the opposite.

 

[Fietta]

Axios and Dain, can you stop this back and forth bickering? @DainMorgot there's no reason for instigating with your passive aggressive comments, if he's saying that he hasn't played in a while, then respect that instead of going on a tangent of 'lol you got stomped I saw your name', we'll be having no more bickering about who got stomped where and when considering it's not relevant in any respect. If the bickering between you continues then I'll have to hand out warnings. Stay on topic and stop attempting to flamebait each other.

 

[AxiosXiphos]

Axios and Dain, can you stop this back and forth bickering? @DainMorgot there's no reason for instigating with your passive aggressive comments, if he's saying that he hasn't played in a while, then respect that instead of going on a tangent of 'lol you got stomped I saw your name', we'll be having no more bickering about who got stomped where and when considering it's not relevant in any respect. If the bickering between you continues then I'll have to hand out warnings. Stay on topic and stop attempting to flamebait each other.

Thank you Fietta. Let that be an end to it.

It could be reworked to help mitigate this issue, true, but the problem is that TW doesn't even see this issue. It's been pointed out since the alpha that this is one of the consequences of the current iteration of the class system (and its gold values), yet the only adjustment done so far has been slightly tweaking the value of a handful of classes. They even said that their goal with the class system is "removing snowballing from the game", and from their communication it sounds like they feel this has been achieved, when it's actually quite the opposite.

I have a strong feeling TW are not focussing on the multiplayer right now though - which in my eyes is kind of understandable. Game is predominantly SP and this is what TW really want to focus on for the time being. I think as we draw to release and the SP game is much more stable you will see a big increase in MP drive; including new skins etc which we know are being worked on in the background.

I don't believe TW consider multiplayer finalised by any margin - just not their current priority.

 

[XDaron]

it´s clear they had a vision, and that we were only really welcome in the beta as bugfixers and balance testers (and for art suggestions I guess), anything related to to features or gameplay was ignored, ~90% of the combat issues threads had no response. some people started being very harsh about the absence of response or change, and that caused other people that defended ''realistic combat'' to come in.


I wonder what's the fundamental aspect of slasher games that make them so quickly become niche games.
what fundamentally differentiates popular games like csgo, league, fortnite... from niche games like, mordhau, chivalry, mount and blade....

 

[jon01]

it´s clear they had a vision, and that we were only really welcome in the beta as bugfixers and balance testers (and for art suggestions I guess), anything related to to features or gameplay was ignored, ~90% of the combat issues threads had no response. some people started being very harsh about the absence of response or change, and that caused other people that defended ''realistic combat'' to come in.

I find looking at videos of Warband's beta from 2009 encouraging, because you can clearly see the game underwent significant improvements to combat within a year from its full release.



I hope Bannerlord will undergo the same amount of improvement throughout EA, so that we can look back on its current state in the same way.

I have a strong feeling TW are not focussing on the multiplayer right now though - which in my eyes is kind of understandable. Game is predominantly SP and this is what TW really want to focus on for the time being.

They said they have development teams working separately on both.

 

[Caps]

I find looking at videos of Warband's beta from 2009 encouraging, because you can clearly see the game underwent significant improvements to combat within a year from its full release.



I hope Bannerlord will undergo the same amount of improvement throughout EA, so that we can look back on its current state in the same way.


They said they have development teams working separately on both.

that looks horrible tbh, the multiplayer team is far too small still and progress is very slow

 

[Alyss]

 

[Younes]

This is ****ing quality

 

[jon01]

that looks horrible tbh

Yeah. The attack animations are sluggish and rudimentary. The couched lances have no cool down period.

隐藏

Also, looking at these beta videos from two months later, running around has an ice-skating feel, there's a slow stun effect from short falls, and it has other sorts of problems similar to Bannerlord.

隐藏

Here they even mention you'll be able to upgrade to different kinds of troops after winning rounds (i.e. Bannerlord's class system), which they eventually evolved into the equipment selection for Warband.

the multiplayer team is far too small still and progress is very slow

Well, the videos above are from June-August 2009, and the game released in March 2010. Maybe progress will come within a similar time frame?

 

[POWERBITS01]

All I can say is you guys are killing the MP scene

 

[RCC_God]

All I can say is you guys are killing the MP scene

What does that mean? People asking for a finished game?

 

[๖Kern]

I find looking at videos of Warband's beta from 2009 encouraging, because you can clearly see the game underwent significant improvements to combat within a year from its full release.



I hope Bannerlord will undergo the same amount of improvement throughout EA, so that we can look back on its current state in the same way.


They said they have development teams working separately on both.

The game had pretty meh animations until some updates after the release. I still don't feel encouraged.